Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRANSPORT BILL (PETITION)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to ask the leave of the House to present a Petition on behalf of a number of ratepayers and residents of the village of Wool, Dorset, against the nationalisation of the railways. The Petition says, amongst other things:
The British railways under private ownership are as efficient as any others in the world.

Mr. Chetwynd: What about last night's Debate?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Petition asks that the Transport Bill be not proceeded with until after a public and independent inquiry. The Petition concludes with the appropriate Prayer.

To lie upon the Table.

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered:
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom during each month of the year 1947—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Government Rubber Stocks

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much rubber was in Government hands at the latest available date; and what is the cost per lb.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): On 27th December last Government stocks of natural rubber in the United Kingdom were 0164,048 tons with an average c.i.f. cost of 14⅝d. per lb.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, in view of the publication of the White Paper on economic conditions and his speech in the country, what loss there is to the taxpayer? Will he repeat his decision to restore a free market for the rubber commodity and stop the suicidal policy of bulk purchasing in this country? May I' have an answer, please?

Sir S. Cripps: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not the present stock price of rubber 3d. lower than that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir S. Cripps: Until more arrivals come from Singapore, rubber "is at present being sold at 15 13/16ths pence per lb.

Industrial Development, West Lothian

Mr. Mathers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will improve the prospects of the county of Linlithgow attracting new industries by abolishing the arbitrary line of demarcation between development and non-development areas which cuts the county in two and is wholly unjustified by any test that can be applied.

Sir S. Cripps: I am prepared to consider sympathetically requests from industrialists to build factories themselves in the part of West Lothian which is excluded from the development area, but on present evidence I do not consider that any readjustment of boundaries of the development area is justified in advance of the general reconsideration of this matter which will have to be undertaken next year in accordance with Section 7 of the Act.

Mr. Mathers: Is, the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his attitude is out of keeping with the attitude of those most competent to judge in' this matter? Is he also aware that in this matter the Government, who are otherwise highly esteemed, earn a very high black mark?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — D.D.T.

Mr. John Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the lowest price for full strength D.D.T. in 10-ton lots is 3s. 3d. per pound in this country as against 2s. 10d. per pound in the U.S.A., and what are the reasons for this large difference.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that the price of D.D.T. is higher in this country than in the U.S.A., but comparative information on raw material and other production costs and on royalty payments is not available.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to alter the policy of his Department which has resulted in the formation of a cartel amongst the manufacturers of D.D.T.

Sir S. Cripps: I. am aware that the producers of D.D.T. in this country sell at a common price but not as the result of the policy of my Department. D.D.T. is in free supply and is not subject to statutory control.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that the manufacturers have agreed among themselves not to supply full strength D.D.T. for export purposes, whereas the Americans are supplying it, and is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that there is not some restrictive practice?

Sir S. Cripps: With regard to exports, the next Question the hon. Member has on the Order Paper deals with that matter.

Mr. Frank Byers: Are not the Government intending to do anything at all about price-fixing arrangements, which hold the public up to ransom?

Sir S. Cripps: Where there is evidence of any such arrangements, we take action.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the export of full strength D.D.T. is prohibited from this country by a manufacturer's cartel, except to restricted markets in the Empire where it has to meet the lower-priced American competition; and if he will have an immediate inquiry made into the position with a view to assisting the British export market.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any prohibitions on exports of D.D.T. from this country, but I am advised that there are in the United Kingdom and other countries patent rights relating to the preparation and use of D.D.T. in certain forms as an insecticide. The conditions on which licences under patents are granted are a matter for negotiation between the patentees and the applicants for such licences.

Mr. Lewis: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman normally be aware of any particular price-fixing arrangement which might be in existence? Is it his practice to inquire from 'various cartels exactly what their arrangements are?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, unless something is drawn to my attention it is not my practice to make general inquiries.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not remarkable that Socialist Members should draw attention to the efficiency of America, which is a land of free enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — Postage Stamps

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now reconsidered the regulations governing the import and export of postage stamps; and whether he will now relax these to enable British amateur philatelists to make exchanges with those in other countries without using the restrictive procedure required by his Department.

Sir S. Cripps: Barter transactions of postage stamps are already permitted, on certain conditions, under an open general licence. For currency reasons, I am not prepared to relax present restrictions on the export of stamps without a corresponding importation.

Mr. Sharp: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that his Parliamentary Secretary on 23rd October advised me in writing that he recognised the restrictive nature of the present regulations in preventing very small transactions, and that urgent reconsideration was to be given to this matter?

Sir S. Cripps: The matter has been reconsidered, and in view of the dangers, it has been found impossible to relax the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — Socks (Large Size)

Mr. Sharp: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he will give to the large-footed men of the country by encouraging manufacturers to make available socks of the size of 12 inches upwards.

Mr. Symonds: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of large-sized men's socks, particularly the 12-inch size; and if he will take steps to increase the production of the larger sizes to meet the demand and to prevent the discomfort and foot troubles which result from socks being too short.

Sir S. Cripps: Manufacturers are allowed increased prices for their utility socks in sizes 12-inch and above. I have no evidence of a particular scarcity of these goods, but, if my hon. Friends will send me further information, I will consider whether anything needs to be done.

Mr. Sharp: Is the Minister aware that if he goes round the shops of London, or anywhere else, he just cannot find the full-length socks needed by men requiring not 12-inch shoes, but 10½-inch shoes?

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman will draw my attention to a particular case, I will consider it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In view of the large number of Questions addressed to the President of the Board of Trade on such matters as socks and other things, would he receive a deputation of such over-sized men to drive the point home?

Sir S. Cripps: I think the matter has been so thoroughly inquired into as a result of all the representations made, that it would do no good.

Mr. Gallacher: Might I ask the Minister whether, when he is considering socks for men with big feet, he will also consider special socks for Members on the other side suffering from cold feet?

Oral Answers to Questions — Glass Bottles

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the continuing shortage of glass bottles; and what steps have been taken to improve the position during 1947.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that the output of glass bottles, although well above the prewar level, is still insufficient to meet the greatly increased demands. We are doing all we can to stimulate production and are licensing substantial imports.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister say what he is doing to scale down the enormous priority demand by Government Departments and others for bottles which is really the cause of the shortage?

Sir S. Cripps: Most of the large demand is for milk bottles, of course, which are necessary for delivering milk to the public.

Mr. Molson: Will the President of the Board of Trade say whether he is doing anything about the salvage of bottles?

Sir S. Cripps: Nothing is done except what is done by individual firms for salvaging bottles of their own. Many individuals are unable to purchase goods in bottles unless they give a bottle in exchange. I believe this is so in the case of beer.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the President try to force the Minister of Food to implement the condition of issuing cod liver oil and orange juice only if a bottle is returned? At present 4,000 gross of bottles are wasted each week because of the refusal of the Minister of Food to implement this condition.

Sir S. Cripps: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Giant Tyres, Lincolnshire

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that during November, 1946, only 12 giant tyres were available for distribution for the whole of Lincolnshire; and if he is satisfied that this second largest county in the country is getting its fair share of the tyres available.

Sir. S. Cripps: Well over 1,000 giant tyres were supplied to Lincolnshire depots in November last. Tyre manufacturers distribute according to demand and I have no reason to suppose that Lincolnshire is not getting its appropriate share.

Mr. Osborne: If so many tyres were sent to Lincolnshire in November, why is it that so many of the farm vehicles are off the road and the stuff is not being sent to the factories for lack of these tyres?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without full particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cloth and Clothing (Retail Margins)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade why no consultation took place between his Department and the retail trade, prior to his announcement of 13th December, to the effect that a new order regarding retail prices had been signed; and if he will explain the full circumstances in which this change in procedure was brought about and what were the reasons for the reduction in the profit margin in view of rising costs to retailers.

Sir S. Cripps: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the reduction in retail margins on cloth and clothing. Negotiations with the retailers' joint committee began last July and no fewer than nine retail associations took part in the discussions, which extended over a period of several months. I myself had a meeting with the joint committee on 17th December. The maximum retail percentage margins for cloth and clothing were fixed during the war, and revisions were necessary because both the prices on which the margins are calculated and the volume of goods had increased substantially. In making reductions, I took account of actual and potential increases in retailers' expenses, which they have to bear out of their margins.

Mr. Stewart: Is the, right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the case of utility furniture no such consultations took place, and I am informed by the association concerned that the change was made without any reference to them whatever?

Sir S. Cripps: The lack of information is inaccurate if it applies to cloth and clothing. As regards utility furniture, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put a Question down if he wants an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — Soda Ash and Caustic Soda

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the situation arising on account of the cut in supplies of soda ash and alkalis to the paper trade; that if these cuts are sustained large scale unemployment is likely to result; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Sir S. Cripps: There were temporary cuts in the production of soda ash and caustic soda owing to the fuel shortage, though it was possible to maintain deliveries of caustic soda from stocks in manufacturers' hands. The cuts have now been largely restored and industry generally, including paper mills, should be receiving sufficient supplies for their current production.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the paper mills can look forward with some assurance to fairly large supplies over the next few months?

Sir S. Cripps: There is no particular reason why the supplies at present being given should not continue.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I took the matter up with the Minister responsible, and I have had letters from the firms saying that they are now satisfied with the supplies?

Oral Answers to Questions — Departmental Information Services

Mr. Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what increase in personnel and cost there has been in the Public Relations and Press Departments of his Department as compared with the position before the war.

Sir S. Cripps: A staff of 88 is engaged on information services for home and overseas in my Department; the cost during the quarter ended 31st December last was approximately £9,000. No special provision was made for this work in the Board of Trade before the war, when the work to be done differed widely from that at present undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — Paper (New Publications)

Mr. Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount by weight, of paper used by publications first published after 16th August 1940; and what percentage this represents of the total consumption of newsprint for the last four-monthly periods.

Sir S. Cripps: As no licence is now necessary to enable any new newspaper or periodical publication to be published provided that it does not use more than eight cwts. of paper in a four months period, I am unable to state the weight of paper used by publications first published after 16th August, 1940.

Mr. Butcher: Is the right hon. and learned gentleman aware that the restrictions very seriously handicap journals dealing with new inventions, sucn as radar, plastics, and so on, and may have some detrimental effect on our export trade?

Sit S. Cripps: I am aware that many journals are, unfortunately, being hampered by shortage of paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crockery and Glassware

Mr. Butcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that more adequate supplies of crockery and glassware will be made available to the public.

Sir S. Cripps: We have done, and are doing, our best to help manufacturers of crockery and glassware to increase their output by assisting them when we can over the supply of labour and machinery, and with building licences. Home production of both crockery and glassware is also' being supplemented by imports.

Mr. Butcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when President of the Board of Trade, gave an assurance in 1942 that he would divert goods from the export trade to the people of this country?

Sir S. Cripps: No doubt he was not then aware of the present economic situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Burma Teak

Commander Noble: asked the President of the Board of Trade what price is being paid by his Department for Burma teak; and what is the price to the public.

Sir S. Cripps: The basic prices for the sale to the public of sawn teak from Burma are given in detail on pages 41–43 of the Control of Timber (No. 33) (Imported Timber Prices) Order (S.R. & O. 1944 No. 918). It has not recently been possible to purchase teak from Burma except at prices substantially above these levels.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sieves

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to save fuel and coal for domestic grates and boilers, he will take steps to ensure an adequate supply of sieves for sifting cinders, since in many parts of the

country there are at the present time none available.

Sir S. Cripps: So far as supplies of steel allow, I am doing all I can to maintain the output of these sieves.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware that there are large numbers of matters which want sifting and sorting at the Board of Trade, and would he be good enough to confer with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, whose advice would be very profitable to him?

Oral Answers to Questions — Esparto Grass

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Guard Bridge Paper Company has had to close down on account of the unexpected cut in supplies of esparto grass, about which he has been informed; why no previous notice of the cut was sent to the company; when further supplies are to be expected; and what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of such unheralded curtailment of supplies.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The immediate shortage was due to a diversion at very short notice of certain ships for the purpose of carrying grain. No fresh supplies could therefore be allowed for the time being to the Guard Bridge Paper Company but further supplies have now been sent to them and I understand they re-opened on Tuesday last. All users of esparto have been warned of the supply position and efforts are being made in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport to improve shipments.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the company in question informed me today that quantities supplied to them will keep them going for only half a week, and that they have been discouraged from laying up stocks in the past on the direct instructions of the Department?

Sir S. Cripps: The shortage of shipping has had a serious effect upon the importation of esparto. We are doing our best now to try and get it improved.

Oral Answers to Questions — Artists' Materials

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties of artists and art schools


caused by the shortage of essential working materials; and if he will give an estimate of the approximate loss in cash value if the export of these materials were discontinued until reasonable home needs were satisfied.

Sir S. Cripps: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part, that exports are now running at about £140,000 a quarter. I would, however, point out that supplies to the home market are already above the prewar level.

Mr. Levy: In view of the very small sum involved, and the very small loss to the export trade, will not my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider this matter in view of the shortages that exist?

Sir S. Cripps: Unfortunately the exports from this country are made up of a great number of small items, and if each one is attacked individually, there will be nothing left.

Oral Answers to Questions — Wood Poles (Allocation)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the President of the Board of Trade what allocation of imported poles suitable for the electricity supply industry has now been made; and to whom the allocation was made, and the numbers involved.

Sir S. Cripps: Allocations of telegraph and transmission poles have been made for the first quarter of' 1947 as follow:

Post Office
…
Nil


Electricity Commission
…
46,900


Other Departments
…
12,400

Mr. Osborne: How many were sent to the Post Office?

Sir S. Cripps: None.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Postmaster-General always makes the excuse when we ask for telephones in rural areas that he cannot get poles?

Sir S. Cripps: Under the very stringent shortages at present existing, it is believed that the need for electricity is greater.

Oral Answers to Questions — Crawler Tractors

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he is asking timber merchants to pay more than the original cost price for crawler tractors which have been hired to them

by his Department, and on which they may have paid hiring charges already totalling more than the cost price.

Sir S. Cripps: The prices charged are based on current sale values, after making due allowance for depreciation. I am advised that they compare favourably with those which are being realised for similar vehicles in the open market. The amounts paid for the hiring of the vehicles are not regarded as relevant to the disposal value.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman offer some concession to merchants who give an undertaking not to resell their vehicles?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not see any reason why they should get them below market price, which is what substantially has happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — Knitting Wool

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the shortage of fine knitting wool and baby wools in the Perth area; and what prospects there are of increasing the supply.

Sir S. Cripps: Hand-knitting wools are in short supply generally, but I have no information that the Perth area is less well supplied than other areas. Production, which is limited by the lack of skilled operatives, particularly in the worsted spinning section of the wool textile industry, is increasing, and was 18 per cent. higher last year than in 1945. The proportion of spinning capacity allocated to baby wools has recently been increased.

Oral Answers to Questions — Steel Industry (Coal Supplies)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has had under review the serious situation created in the steel industry in Sheffield by the reduction to 75 per cent. of the November coal allocations; and, as this decision forces some firms engaged in steel production in Sheffield to be conducted on the basis of a four-day week, when he hopes to restore coal allocation at least to the November level.

Sir S. Cripps: I am aware of the effect on steel production generally of the recent


cut in coal allocations, but, in the present coal shortage we must spread cut the loss of industrial output in order to preserve, as far as we can, the right balance in industry. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power about availabilities of coal for the coming months, with a view to seeing what future arrangements can be made for supplies to industry, including steel.

Sir P. Hannon: Does not this reveal an extraordinary state of affairs in the coal and steel industry of this country? In view of this state of affairs, and the going back to a three-day week because of the absence of coal, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to maintain the policy of exports?

Sir S. Cripps: Unfortunately we cannot make provision, for using coal which is not there. What we have attempted to do is to spread the available coal in the best possible way over the greatest field of industry.

Major Peter Roberts: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the short sightedness of cutting down the steel programme at this stage, and could he not reconsider the question, which is such a tragic one for Sheffield?

Sir S. Cripps: It has been considered extremely carefully, but it is no use producing steel if the using industries are also falling off in the amount of steel they use. What is intended is to keep a balance between the making and using of steel.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is the view of those who are best informed in Scotland on both sides of the industry that this cut is having a greater unfortunate effect in Scotland than in other parts of the country?

Sir S. Cripps: I understand that the position in Scotland is better than in other parts of the country.

Mr. Stewart: It is worse.

Sir P. Hannon: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Boys' Wages

Mr. Me Adam: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the daily rate of wages being paid to boys directed to the mines in the Wheatsheaf Pit, Pendlebury, owned by the Lancashire Colliery Company.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): Directions under Regulation 58A are not issued to youths under the age of 18. For persons entering the industry voluntarily, the weekly rates paid at the Wheatsheaf Pit for a six-shift week are the gross rates specified in the District Wage Agreement. They vary according to age from 60s. to 90s. for surface workers, and from 70s. to 100s. for underground workers. I am sending my hon. Friend detailed particulars of the rates paid.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On a point of Order. Is it correct to state, as is stated on the Order Paper, that these mines are owned by the Lancashire Colliery Company?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that is not correct now, because the ownership has changed.

Mr. McAdam: When the Question was put down, they were the property of that company.

Coal Board's Staff

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now state the number of non-industrial staff employed by the Coal Board.

Mr. Shinwell: I have no information as to the number of staff—non-industrial or otherwise—employed by the National Coal Board.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that this information will eventually percolate to his Department?

Mr. Shinwell: The National Coal Board are under no obligation to announce the numbers of their staff. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is a commercial undertaking.

Absenteeism

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much


coal is calculated to have been lost by reason of voluntary absenteeism from the pits in the period immediately following the Christmas holidays.

Mr. Shinwell: Satisfactory estimates of the loss of output due to absenteeism cannot be given, owing to the difficulty of evaluating all the factors involved. Output in the two weeks ending 4th January, 1947, was a million tons more this year than last.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that there was a substantial loss in the output of coal caused by voluntary absenteeism during this period?

Mr. Shinwell: I deprecate this constant emphasis on absenteeism among miners. There is no such emphasis as regards other employment.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Does the Minister then disagree with the complaint of Sir Ben Smith during this period?

Mr. Shinwell: Sir Ben Smith did not make a complaint; he just afforded an explanation.

Mr. David Griffiths: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, while there is an increase in the tonnage and output per man hour, a lot of the absenteeism is due to hon. Members opposite decrying individuals?

Freight Rebates Fund

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will furnish particulars showing how the £1,800,000 he received from the Railways Freight Rebates Fund for the 12 months ended 30th September, 1946, was utilised for purposes connected with the production and marketing of coal; and how he proposes to utilise the estimated amount of £2,387,000 payable to him in respect of the 12 months ending 30th September, 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: The £1,800,000 received from the Freight Rebates Fund in the year to 30th September, 1946, has been paid as to £554,000 to the Coal Charges Account in relief generally of the costs of coal production, and as to the balance to the Vote of the Ministry of Fuel and Power in diminution of subsidies which

have been paid to relieve consumers of part of the exceptional costs of conveyance of coal for inland use. The allocation of the further sums to be received has not yet been decided.

Wages Cost

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the wages cost, as a percentage of the total cost of production in the British coal industry, for each of the years from 1943 to the latest available date.

Mr. Shinwell: The figures are:







Per cent.


1943
…
…
…
…
72


1944
…
…
…
…
71


1945
…
…
…
…
71


1946
…
…
…
…
71


(January-September only)

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of the White Paper on economic affairs which was issued on Monday to every miner in the country?

Mr. Shinwell: I gather that the miners of the country are more familiar with all these economic aspects than the hon. Member.

Austin Works

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the recent fuel shortage at the Austin works.

Mr. Shinwell: I will shortly be in a position to make a full statement on this matter.

Himley Hall

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what advice was received on the condition of the foundations of Himley Hall before its purchase by the Midland Regional Coal Board; when it is intended to work the coal seam beneath the Hall; and when it is anticipated that the Hall will have to be evacuated through the working of the seam.

Mr. Shinwell: This is entirely a matter for the National Coal Board on which I have no information.

Vesting Day Celebrations

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what reduction of coal output took place over the country as a


whole, and specifically in South Wales, on 1st January last, as a result of the Vesting Day celebrations.

Mr. Shinwell: The Vesting Day celebrations were carefully arranged to avoid interference with production, and generally took place on the Sunday following the Vesting Day. In South Wales, brief celebrations took place at the pithead on Vesting Day itself, but these were fitted in with the change of shifts. I have no reason to believe that there was any loss of output in consequence of these celebrations, and, indeed, production over the country as a whole during the week was much higher than in the corresponding week of the previous year.

Mr. Raikes: Is it not a fact that, before 1st January, which was Vesting Day, in Yorkshire alone there was 50 per cent. absenteeism and 50,000 tons of coal were lost?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not accept the hon. Member's figures at all; indeed, I challenge them at once. What I do say is that it is quite understandable that there should be a little enthusiasm among miners when they came to the end of a very sordid chapter in the mining industry.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Did the miners on this happy day display the same joy and enthusiasm as was reflected on the faces of Cabinet Ministers who were photographed on that day?

Mr. Shinwell: If it comes to any allegations against the faces of Cabinet Ministers, there are no oil paintings on the opposite side of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

Economy

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what definition he proposes to give as to what is considered an extravagant consumption of electricity in connection with the Control of Fuel Order (No. 3), 1942–43.

Mr. Shinwell: If, as I assume, the hon. and gallant Member refers to the Articles of the Control of Fuel (No. 3) Order, 1942, prohibiting the waste or uneconomical use of fuel, including electricity, I think it must be clear that circumstances differ so widely in individual cases that

no general definition is practicable. In any case, interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts.

Colonel Hutchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how individuals are to know whether they are being extravagant, unless they have some definition as to what extravagance is?

Mr. Shinwell: As I say, that is a matter for interpretation.

Coal Supplies

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps have been taken during the past 18 months to enable the coalmines to provide for the power stations the quality of coal for the consumption of which they were designed and with which they were supplied prewar; and how soon the resumption of deliveries of such coal can be relied upon.

Mr. Shinwell: All possible steps have been taken during the past 18 months to enable the coalmines to provide suitable qualities of coal to power stations, but the quantity of coal required for generating electricity is greatly in excess of what it was before the war, and is still increasing. It must be some time before the quality can be restored to prewar standards.

Sir A. Gridley: Is the Minister aware that if the coalmines were in a position to supply the class of coal for which the power stations and boiler houses were designed, the existing plants in those stations would be in a position to supply another 400,000 horsepower at the peak load, and thus diminish the amount of shedding which has had to be done?

Mr. Shinwell: There is some substance in what the hon. Member has said. But, as he well knows, it is only in the last few weeks that the industry has been brought under national ownership.

Sir A. Gridley: But the industry has been under the charge of the Minister for something like 18 months—presumably he was responsible for it? Did he not use his influence on the coalowners to provide the necessary washing plant, and so on?

Mr. Shinwell: Exactly, but the coal-owners have been unable to provide the necessary facilities for screening and washing.

Major P. Roberts: May I ask that it will not be the policy of the Coal Board to sacrifice output in order to get cleaner coal?

Mr. Shinwell: I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the Coal Board will do very much better than the friends of the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: When do the Coal Board expect to equal the output of the mines before the war?

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how stocks of coal now held by the electricity supply industry compare with those held 12 months ago; what stocks he estimates will be held early in March; and whether he anticipates that these will be adequate to ensure the full use of the available generating plant.

Mr. Shinwell: The latest figure of stocks held by the electricity supply industry is 1,293,156 tons as compared with 2,315,911 tons held a year ago. In view of many variable factors, I cannot forecast stocks for early March but power station requirements of coal have the highest priority and everything possible will be done to maintain their stocks at an adequate level.

Rural Areas

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is the policy of the Electricity Commission to favour urban dwellings as compared with rural cottages in the provision of electric lighting; and why essential poles are being refused in rural areas.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir; the Electricity Commission do not discriminate in favour of urban dwellings. The issue of licences to acquire poles is restricted because there is a great shortage of poles.

Load Shedding(Hospitals)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, during periods of unavoidable load shedding, arrangements will be made to continue an uninterrupted supply of electricity to hospitals.

Mr. Shinwell: Electricity undertakings are instructed to avoid as far as possible cutting of supplies without telephone warning to hospitals. Though it is not possible to guarantee that in no circumstances will supplies to hospitals ever be interrupted, I have not heard of any

cases where the electricity undertaker has not been able to make satisfactory arrangements with the hospitals in their area. If my hon. Friend has heard of any such case, I will be glad to investigate it.

Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of using idle generators? As an example, is he aware that, at Taunton, there are two idle generators, and that notice was sent to the Central Electricity Board on nth November and yet no action was taken, although the use of these generators would have avoided load shedding in that area?

Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised to learn that there are any idle generators that could be made available for immediate use, and, if the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars, I will certainly have them examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AIRPORT (STOPPED HOUSING WORKS)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Prime Minister which Government Department, or other authority, is primarily responsible for the mistake as a result of which the construction of houses and roads in the Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District area, adjacent to the Heathrow Airport, has had to be stopped and work demolished; and on which authority or Department will the expenditure so far involved fall.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The Government's decision to extend the London Airport was taken in January, 1946. After considering the effect of the revised layout of the airport upon surrounding development, the Ministry of Civil Aviation found in February that an alteration in the line hitherto accepted for the diversion of the Bath Road would be necessary and proceeded to discuss the new line with the Ministry of Transport. The final line was agreed on 4th October, 1946.
By a mistake, which I regret, the Ministry of Civil Aviation did not inform Departments concerned of the re-alignment until 22nd November; and the actual construction of houses had begun on 1st November. In consequence, a small amount of building work will have to be demolished. Any compensation to be paid will come from Government funds. Some abortive expenditure on this hous-


ing scheme was inevitable since the scheme itself was approved in 1944 and site development began in December, 1945.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the Prime Minister say whether any action has been taken against the person in the Ministry who made this gross mistake?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It is not a matter for disciplinary action. Attention has been called to the matter.

Mr. J. H. Hare: Could the Prime Minister state what the total cost of the mistake amounted to, and how many houses had been started, upon which work had to cease?

The Prime Minister: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH CONVERSATIONS

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of his conversations with the President of the French Republic.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government were very glad to welcome Monsieur Blum in London once again and his visit provided the opportunity of a most useful exchange of views. Hon. Members will have seen from the communique issued at the conclusion of the visit that our discussions covered a wide field, that agreement was reached on a number of important questions both political and economic, and that, in particular, it was agreed that
a Treaty of Alliance should be concluded between the two countries at the earliest possible moment within the framework of Article 52 of the Charter of the United Nations and with the object of preventing any further aggression by Germany and of preserving peace and security.
There is no need for me to enlarge on the communique, but I would like to make it clear that His Majesty's Government are anxious to enter into negotiations for such a Treaty of Alliance as soon as the new French Government is ready to do so.

Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this proposed Anglo-French Treaty, which will be warmly welcomed in all quarters of the House, is not in any way a substitute for the Anglo-Soviet Treaty, but is intended as a supple-

ment to a general system of European security, of which the Anglo-Soviet Treaty constitutes an essential part?

The Prime Minister: Obviously a treaty with one Power cannot be a substitute for a treaty with another. Our French friends and our Russian friends have a treaty and we have a treaty with our Russian friends. The more treaties and alliances we can get within the ambit of the United Nations the better.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the Anglo-French Treaty be followed up by economic conversations in order to make it additionally valuable?

The Prime Minister: They are already proceeding.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: For the purpose of accuracy would the Prime Minister give us the dates when M. Blum was President of the French Republic, as mentioned in the Question?

The Prime Minister: It is not my mistake; it should have been "President of the Council of Ministers."

Mr. Warbey: On a point of Order. The Question, as I drafted it, referred to the "President of the French Government," which, I believe, was the correct title at the time.

Mr. McKinlay: Will publicity be given to the fact that the visit of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to Moscow was not aimed at the United States of America?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-éGYPTIAN NEGOTIATIONS (DOMINIONS)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Prime Minister whether the Dominions have been consulted in all the negotiations with Egypt and the Sudan; and, whether they have signified their full agreement with decisions so far taken and proposals put forward by His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: The Dominion Governments have been kept fully informed, in accordance with the general practice of His Majesty's Government, as described in the statement winch I made here on 8th May last, and of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, as far as it goes, may I ask him to answer the second part of the Question, about decisions and proposals?

The Prime Minister: It is not a matter of decisions but of information. We are always glad to receive any views from the Dominion Governments, but this is a matter with which His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom have primarily to deal.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Carpenters

Mr. Byers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Sherborne Urban District Council's housing programme is being seriously retarded for the lack of carpenters; that there are only three to do the work of eight; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the situation immediately.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir, I am aware of this shortage and an additional carpenter has been supplied for the local authority housing contract, bringing the number up to six, including two apprentices. It is also hoped to provide a trainee from a Government training centre in the near future. Every effort will be made to meet the contractors' requirements but there are other demands in the area for local authority housing.

Clothing Industry

Mr. Walkden: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the labour problems of the firms which now produce utility clothing at trade union and trade board standard rates of pay and thereby help to maintain supplies of clothing for the masses at reasonable prices; and what action he proposes to take to ensure more adequate supplies of labour and continuity of production.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the labour requirements for the production of both utility and non-utility clothing. In some sections of the industry there is a surplus of labour due to shortage of materials. Recruitment is being stimulated by publicity and by bringing opportunities to

the notice of individuals seeking employment, and a scheme of training for new entrants has been started. The question of manning up the under-manned industry is one of the matters on which the National Joint Advisory Council have undertaken to assist me.

Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a terrible situation in the tailoring trade where firms making luxury price goods, suits made at fantastic prices, get lots of labour, and the firms who have utility contracts get very little; and can he not stimulate the flow in the opposite direction?

Mr. Isaacs: It is for those people who employ the workers and pay their wages to take their share of this responsibility. It is not the business of the Ministry of Labour at present to say that people are to go to certain jobs on certain rates of payment.

Mr. Walkden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in the main, the best employers are those who are in the regulated trades, the utility trades, and that they have this difficulty because their behaviour is good? It is the bad behaviour of the other people which causes the trouble.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman can give me any particulars of any behaviour contrary to the Wages Council Regulations, I will look into it.

Polish Miners

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many Poles have yet started work in the mines in this country.

Mr. Isaacs: We are in process of registering skilled underground Polish miners and they are being placed in employment as soon as possible.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that none have yet started work?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The answer does not mean that. It means what it says: they are being placed in employment as soon as possible.

Hon. Members: How many?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not say at any given moment. I must ask the House to remember that one cannot take a Pole, however skilled he may say he is in coal


milling, out of the recruiting centre and put him straight down into the pit. He must be put into contact with the place where he is to be employed and must get some form of training. That is the procedure. There are very great prospects of a considerable introduction of these men in the near future

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question on the Paper? It is a perfectly clear Question as to how many of these men have actually started work.

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to dictate to me the answer he wants me to give him, I will consider it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am still under the impression that it is the right of the Member to ask a Question and I think the Minister has the right to give his answer.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is it the Minister's right to answer a totally different question from the one which was put down?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order; I am quite certain of that.

Mr. Molson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if we are to understand from his answer that, so far, no Pole has started work?

Mr. Isaacs: If my answer is studied, I think hon. Members will find it is perfectly clear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to give notice that in view of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to answer the Question, I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Sir, is it not a fact that the Government are "up the pole"?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFESSIONAL TRAINEES (RELEASE)

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider accelerating the release from the Armed Forces of young men who, before their service, had started training for professional work as architects, surveyors, lawyers, accountants, etc.

Mr. Isaacs: In so far as the men referred to are students, they will be eligible for

early release if they satisfy the conditions governing any arrangements for the release of students for the universities and similar institutions which may be made for the next academic year I could not go further than this.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the right horn Gentleman appreciate the extreme hardship to some of these people, who in some cases will not be able to earn a living until they are 28 or 30 or more years old? In particular, will he consider the loss to the nation if these skilled persons are not coming forward shortly?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, and efforts are made to give men opportunities of taking advantage of the facilities that are open to them. The great trouble is that as soon as we begin to give special facilities for one class of people we have to hold back men in the Services to let those men come out.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: While there are obviously great administrative difficulties in the right hon. Gentleman's Department in giving special consideration to these cases, does not the highest aspect of national interest indicate that they should be given preference?

Mr. Isaacs: I hope I did not give any indication that it was administrative difficulties which constitute our difficulty. It is a question of fair play between men who have been a long time in the Services and those who are coming out.

Mr. McKinlay: Would it be any serious loss to the nation if we had not any lawyers for the next 10 years?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (STATISTICS)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the increase in the numbers of clerical civil servants now in Government employment as compared with official figures given in April, 1939, of 399,598; whether he will now make a statement regarding the numbers of part-time temporary civil servants employed, analysing them by grades; and the number of top-level civil servants of the administrative grade, giving the numbers now employed and the numbers employed prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is precisely the answer that I did not want him to give? [Interruption.] I cannot hear myself speak. I want him to give the answer in order that I may put forward a most valuable supplementary.

Mr. Dalton: I am sure the hon. Member's valuable supplementary will be just as valuable next week when he has read the answer.

Following is the reply:

The figure of 399,598 at 1st April, 1939, relates to non-industrial civil servants. The latest available figures for such staff is 713,589 at 1st October, 1946.

Part-time staffs, by grades, at 1st October, 1946, were:


Administrative
32


Executive
380


Clerical and Sub-Clerical
9,800


Typing
1,360


Professional, Scientific and Technical
580


Minor and Manipulative
50,900


Technical Ancillary
350


Inspectorate
150


Messengers, etc.
9,170


Total
72,722

The number of administrative staff of assistant secretary rank and above—excluding the Foreign Service—employed at 1st October, 1946, was 968 and at 1st April, 1939, was 400.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the numbers of civil servants employed for the year ended 31st December, 1946, as compared with the corresponding period in 1939, separating the various grades, the clerical and sub-clerical grade, the typing grade, the professional, technical and scientific grades, the messenger and porter grade.

Mr. Dalton: This information will be available next month.

Mr. De la Bère: May we have a plain answer to a plain question and not all this prevarication? I only want just a simple straight answer to a straight question. May we have a little information today?

Mr. Dalton: The information will be furnished next month if the hon. Member will put down his Question again in about three weeks' time. To have answered it earlier would have required the employment of hordes of additional officials.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRUSTEE ACTS

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now set up a committee to consider the Trustee Acts and, if thought fit, to make recommendations for their amendment.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that beneficiaries under the trusts and charities are suffering very greatly; and in view of the change in the value of money, which he has brought about, does he not think the time has come to give some very serious thought, within the Department and outside, to this important matter?

Mr. Dalton: We have discussed this matter before and I have suggested to the House that we must consider the additional risks that would be involved in any extension of the trustee list, but I have also said in reply to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that I do not exclude rational reconsideration of the matter. I have the matter under consideration now, but I must frankly tell the House that I think there are very great difficulties and very serious objections in the way of any extension of the trustee list.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY ORDER (EXPLANATORY NOTE)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why no explanatory note accompanies S.R. & O., 1947, No. 51, entitled the Theobromine (Cocoa Drawback) Regulations, 1947.

Mr. Dalton: I did not consider that an explanatory note was necessary. These regulations were discussed with the firms concerned, who are quite satisfied with them, and quite familiar with the procedure.

Sir J. Mellor: Is that any reason why the understanding of the Order by hon. Members of this House should not be facilitated by an explanatory note?

Mr. Dalton: I would have thought the intelligence of the hon. Member was sufficient to understand the Order as it was published.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUBSIDIES

Mr. David Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total amount was paid in cost-of-living subsidies during 1946; and how much of that amount was paid in respect of imported foodstuffs.

Mr. Dalton: The estimate for this financial year is £364 million for foodstuffs, of which £178 million is for imports. The cost in the calendar year 1946 would be somewhat less.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices being paid by the consumer for foodstuffs are becoming progressively out of relation to the changing value of money, and will he consider taking steps to lead the country, not too suddenly but gently, out of this fool's paradise?

Mr. Dalton: I think "fool's paradise" is a rather tendentious description. The fact is that if foodstuffs are subsidised the cost of living is held lower than it otherwise would be and, to that extent, the purchasing power of money is sustained at a higher level than that at which it would otherwise stand.

Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figure has risen from, I think, £335 million since last Budget Day, and how far is it to be permitted to rise in the future?

Mr. Dalton: I cannot anticipate my next Budget Statement.

Mr. Walkden: Is there any considerable reason why we should not have published in the Monthly Digest a detailed statement of each commodity that is subject to subsidies?

Mr. Dalton: I would be very glad to look into that. I have no desire at all to conceal the situation. I think it is very desirable that it should be known and pondered upon, and I will consider whether this particular form of publication could be adopted. I am always prepared to answer questions in great detail on the matter in the House, and I frequently do so. There is nothing to conceal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP-WINDOW LIGHTING

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will consider amending Article 5 of the Control of Fuel (No. 3) Order, 1942, so as to permit shop-window lighting for display and advertisement purposes when such lighting is provided by accumulators charged by wind-driven dynamos.

Mr. Shinwell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on 12th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL

Petroleum Board

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make a statement on the future of the Petroleum Board.

Mr. Shinwell: I have this matter under constant consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Invalid Chairs

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the trivial consumption of petrol for the purpose and the unnecessary trouble caused both to the invalids and to officials by the filling-up of special forms, he will authorise the sale of petrol to owners of mechanical invalid chairs without coupons.

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that it would not be practicable to allow a particular class of consumer to buy petrol without coupons, however small that class may be.

Mr. Hollis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not practicable?

Mr. Shinwell: There are various reasons why not. I could not enter into details at this moment, but the arrangement for supplying petrol to this deserving class of person is very simple in character. If any difficulty should arise, perhaps the hon. Member would inform me, and I would do my best to help him.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-DETAINEE (PASSPORT)

Mr. Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why


an active prewar pro-Fascist, of whom he has been informed, who was detained as an enemy alien in the Isle of Man for four years and had his passport marked for deportation, has had this order cancelled and since been allowed to move to and fro between Great Britain and various European countries.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I know of no authority for the suggestion that it was proposed to deport this man, and I know of no reason to prevent him from travelling.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there were actual marks on this man's passport at the time he was released from the Isle of Man, and that he went to considerable trouble to have them erased? If it was a new passport, then I am sorry, but the information of the right hon. Gentleman is not up to date.

Mr. Ede: I rather think that my information is more recent than that of the hon. Member, from the description he has given of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES' CLERKS (FUNCTIONS)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes, by circularising magistrates or otherwise, to ensure that magistrates' clerks are never permitted to act other than in an advisory capacity.

Mr. Ede: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind the question of expressions of opinion by clerks to justices about the policy embodied in laws or regulations under which proceedings are taken before the magistrates. The conduct of a clerk in court is a matter for the magistrates, whose servant he is. I have no reason to think that magistrates are not fully aware of their responsibilities in this matter, and I do not consider that any suggestions on my part are required to inform them of these responsibilities.

Mr. Yates: In view of the complaint in a recent case, particulars of which I gave, does not the Minister think that specific advice should be tendered to the magistrates' clerk?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think the duty of controlling the clerk must rest with the magistrates, and, when in court, particularly, with the chairman. I hope that the publicity which the hon. Member's Question has given to the matter will encourage some of these people in suitable cases to correct the clerk when he interferes unduly with the course of justice.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware, that, in some instances, the clerk retires with the justices to their room and takes part in their deliberations? Will he not agree that this is an undesirable practice, and will he not take steps to stop it?

Mr. Ede: The magistrates' clerk should not retire with the magistrates unless requested to do so by the bench. If he does so, in his own interests, he should confine such remarks as he makes to advice on points of law that may arise. Of course, what goes on in the magistrates' room is secret, and, as a magistrate myself, I know that the habits of clerks differ in this matter, but it is the duty of the magistrates, if the clerk presumes on his position, to put him in his proper place.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (PERSONAL CASE)

Mr. Sydney Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his Department informed the employers of Miklos Hammer that he was an undesirable alien and the sooner they got rid of him the better; why Hammer himself was summoned to Scotland Yard and there pressed to leave the country; and what offence this survivor of Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau has committed.

Mr. Ede: I have been unable to find any foundation for the first allegation in this Question. As regards the second, the police were recently instructed to ascertain what steps this Hungarian was taking to leave the United Kingdom, and, as he was not at home when the police visited, he was asked to call—not at Scotland Yard, but at the local police station. As I stated in reply to a previous Question by my hon. Friend, this foreigner came here by falsely claiming to be a British subject, and it would be wrong to encourage any idea that foreigners who reach our ports by false pretences will be allowed to stop here.

Mr. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, however false the pretence was, had this gentleman not made it, he would now be dead? It was his only means of saving his life. So far as the first part of the Question is concerned, if my right hon. Friend is unable to find any foundation for it, will he inquire of the reputable firm who employed this man, and to whom the statement was made; and, with regard to the last part of his answer, may I ask him whether it is now the public policy in this country for the surviving victims of Nazism to be hounded by a secret police?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, that is not the policy. During my tenure of office, I have endeavoured to adopt as liberal an attitude as I can towards those people and, I believe, with some measure of success, but I cannot administer the law which this House has passed if I am to allow people who arrive in this country under false pretences to remain here. I take particular care to see that no person is compelled to leave for a country where his religious or political views are likely to bring him into difficulties with the prevailing authorities there.

Mr. Silverman: Does not this gentleman come within that category, and, that being so, can my right hon. Friend now give an assurance that he will not be further disturbed?

Mr. Ede: This man arrived here under false pretences. It is my duty to see that the law of the country is enforced, and he will be required to leave this country, but only for some destination where he will be safe from religious and political persecution.

Mr. Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether such a—

Mr. Speaker: Considerable time has been devoted to this Question, and I think we had better pass on to the Business of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the acting Leader of the House if he will give us Some account of the Business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Before announcing the Business for next week, I have to inform the

House that at the beginning of Business on Monday next, 27th January, it is proposed to move a Motion for a humble Address to His Majesty on the occasion of the Royal visit to the Union of South Africa.
The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday and Tuesday, 27th and 28th January—Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Wednesday and Thursday, 29th and 30th January—Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.
Friday, 31st January—Committee and remaining stages of the Malta (Reconstruction) Bill; and consideration of Motions relating to Double Taxation Relief (South Africa).

Mr. Churchill: May I be permitted to say, in respect of the Motion on Monday, which is to be proposed by His Majesty's Government for a humble Address to His Majesty on the occasion of the Royal visit to the Union of South Africa, that I should be very ready, in the name of the Opposition, to second that Motion, if that is convenient for the public Business.
On the remaining Business announced, I would ask, Are these not very early days in which to take the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill? The Bill was only circulated during the Recess, and it raises a great many far-reaching and difficult matters, stretching back into the radicalism of the past and forward into the jungle of the future. I ask then. Are these not very early days in which to take this Measure; and is it intended to keep it on the Floor of the House—because that makes a difference—or is it to be sent up to a Standing Committee, where only a handful of hon. Members will have a chance of expressing their opinions upon it?

Mr. Greenwood: I should have thought that this problem had been before hon. Members of this House since before the last General Election. In the days when he was Prime Minister in a National Government, the right hon. Gentleman set up a Committee, and the Uthwatt Report has been known for a considerable time to hon. Members of this House. Proposals were made on it by the late


Government. It is true, and I admit it, that this is one occasion on which we did fall down on the promise of legislation. We said that we would pass that Bill last Session. We have not done so. Everybody has been aware for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman's point about the shortage of time. I would submit to the House that active Members of it have had ample time in which to consider the Bill. We must take the Second Reading of it next week. On the question which the right hon. Gentleman quite properly raises about a Standing Committee, if he likes to ask that question next week, I will be prepared to give him an answer; but, until we have the Second Reading of the Bill, I think that it is a little early to discuss how it is to be disposed of in its subsequent stages.

Mr. Churchill: The Bill was only circulated in January. It affects an enormous number of bodies in the country who ought to have an opportunity of reading and studying it and expressing their opinions on it. It is a Bill which is not necessarily or wholly a matter of party; there are many things in it on which there would be grounds of agreement between both sides of the House. Part of the Parliamentary process is that public bodies in the country—elements of opinion in the country—should have a reasonable time—a few weeks—in which to digest and comprehend the legislation which is to be proposed in order that they may talk to their representatives about it. That process is designed to tend towards the efficient despatch of public Business, and to help the work of the House of Commons as a great machine for achieving progress without disaster.

Mr. Greenwood: I should be the last to try to force on the House consideration of a Bill unless hon. Members had had adequate time in which to consider it. But in the days of leisure, which so many hon. Members have been enjoying during the Recess, there really should have been ample time for that. By the time that we discuss this Bill in the House, it will have been in the hands of the public for rather over three weeks, and I should have thought that that was a reasonable time. The problem is not a new one; it is a very ancient problem. We have really done the reasonable thing. I did my best

to get the early publication of this Bill so that there should be ample time for discussion. I think that from 1st January to the middle of next week ought to give adequate time for hon. Members of this House to consult with the people interested in it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only hon. Members of this House who have to give the Bill careful study? It has a severe impact on local authorities, who also take a keen interest in these matters, and, in many cases, they have not yet had time for their appropriate committees to consider this Measure in detail.

Mr. Greenwood: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had listened to my last reply, he would appreciate that I referred to Members and others who were interested in the Bill. I still assert that this is not a new problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a new Bill."] The foundations of this Bill are to be found in the Reports of the Uthwatt Committee, which were published well before the end of the second world war. I should have thought that three weeks was a reasonable time. It is not the case that in the interval there has been no opportunity for discussion with local authorities or that the various organisations concerned have not been consulted. I can only suggest that this is really an example of delaying tactics.

Mr. Churchill: The question of the use made of the Parliamentary time available is quite different from that of giving people in the country an opportunity to advise their representatives what they feel about the legislation to be presented. I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the distinction.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I put two considerations to the right hon. Gentleman? First, is not this the first time that these many ideas and proposals have been put into the form of a Bill? Secondly, is not the Bill itself generally regarded as the most highly technical Measure which this Parliament has seen; and, thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman remember that in these same weeks that he has mentioned we have had three other Bills of major importance, on agriculture, transport and electricity, which we have been obliged to consider and which are not unconnected with this one?


Is it not reasonable, therefore, in all those circumstances to ask for sufficient time to enable us to understand what the Government are asking us to agree to?

Mr. Greenwood: It is not reasonable to impede the progress of this Government, because time is the essence of the promises we have made.

Mr. Churchill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman again show himself incapable of appreciating the simple point which I have put? By the word "time" is meant the use of Parliamentary time. It does not follow' that by putting off this Bill for another fortnight to give more opportunities for it to be understood any more consumption of Parliamentary time would occur. Would not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to comprehend that simple proposition?

Mr. Greenwood: Of course I understand it. The right hon. Gentleman is really not paying me proper regard. I do understand some of these problems. This Bill is part of our programme for this Session. The Bill, as amended by the House, is going to be put on the Statute Book this Session. There cannot be any quarrel about that. We have a little more regard for another place than have hon. Members opposite, and the Bill has to go through its stages in another place as well. Unless we can get the Second Reading early we may have to prolong the Session, which would be very unfortunate. Hon. Members who are full of zeal now would not mind, but at the end of July they will mind very much if the Session is prolonged. I think quite enough time has been given for discussion of this problem in the country. We really must insist on taking the Second Reading next week on the two days mentioned, which I think, provide ample opportunity for discussion of the principles, and other matters can be discussed later.

Mr. Churchill: May I be permitted to deprecate these attempts by the acting Leader of the House to provoke another place into undue discussion of this problem? May I ask him to consider whether something else could not be put down on this coming Wednesday, and this Measure moved forward a fortnight? It would not affect the amount of time available in the House. Could not that be done?

Mr. Greenwood: I have tried to answer this question, and I do not propose to prolong the discussion. In our wisdom, we have decided that this Bill should be taken next week, and next week it will be taken. I see little point in prolonging the discussion.

Mr. Molson: In view of the following facts, that the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the House is incorrect in saying that this Bill was published on 1st January—

Mr. Greenwood: 7th January.

Mr. Molson: —it was, in fact, published on 17th January—that this Bill does not only deal with the Uthwatt Report but attempts to repeal the existing town and country planning legislation passed in 1932 and replaces an entirely new code, and that this is a new solution to the problem of compensation and betterment, will the right hon. Gentleman not really give adequate time for the country and the House to consider this very long and complicated Bill?

Mr. Mathers: Is not one important way of expediting the discussion and understanding of this Bill in the country, to have a Second Reading Debate?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I give one example? This Bill affects non-county boroughs, and the position of non-county borough vis-à-vis the county council. There has been no possible opportunity for the Association of Non-County Boroughs and for the county councils to get together and consider what their attitude to the proposals is to be.

Mr. Gallacher: May I raise an important matter? Is the acting Leader of the House aware that in Scotland there is a ferment about the neglect of Scottish Business; and would he agree to appoint a committee of Scottish Members to make proposals for expediting such Business?

Mr. Churchill: I will give way if the acting Leader of the House wishes to answer the leader of the Communist Party.

Mr. Gallacher: May I have an answer to the question as to whether anything is going to be done to obtain full expedition and more attention to Scottish Business?

Mr. Speaker: No one can compel a Minister to answer. It is the Minister's own choice.

Mr. Churchill: I would like to ask whether the acting Leader of the House would, perhaps, put down Scottish Business on this day, thus gratifying the leader of the other party opposite, and so that there will be a longer opportunity for considering town and country planning? However, the right hon. Gentleman is obdurate and refuses. I have to ask one or two questions about the future course of Business. What are the plans for a Debate on foreign affairs? Will the right hon. Gentleman make any statement about that?

Mr. Greenwood: I assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Foreign Secretary is very anxious to meet the House on this issue. He is very much preoccupied at the moment, as I think most hon. Members will understand. It is our intention to arrange a Debate, on which we have given a pledge, as early as it can be conveniently arranged. It cannot be arranged next week, but it will be as early as possible after that. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to consult me in the interval, I should be very glad to tell him how early we can arrange it, but certainly we shall not be late.

Mr. Churchill: We were not intending to press for any particularly early date for a Debate on foreign affairs in which, for the moment, there is a slight apparent lull, and as to which a broad measure of agreement exists between the- Government and the Opposition on many points. We must have an opportunity in the near future of discussing Palestine, but not until the conference is over. I submit that that opportunity should be granted to us. For 18 months there has been no decision and no policy. I do not know how many scores of millions of pounds a year we are spending in that country, or how many scores of thousands of men we are keeping away from their homes and their work here where they are needed-There ought to be some Debate on this subject, and some policy ought to be before us as soon as the present conference is concluded. Could we have an undertaking about that? I press that in front of a general Debate on the foreign affairs situation, although, of course, any statement which the Foreign Secretary wishes to make to us would, naturally, be received by us with the greatest attention. There is also the question of con-

ditions in Germany, which is a most formidable issue, and at some time we must certainly have an opportunity for a day's Debate upon that. I am pressing those questions rather more than the general problem of foreign affairs, upon which, as I say, there is a considerable measure of agreement between the Front Benches.

Mr. Scollan: What about the Vote of Censure?

Mr. Churchill: I was just coming to that. I do not want to overburden the right hon. Gentleman the acting Leader of the House with too many questions at one moment. Perhaps he will answer what I have just asked; then I will raise the further point.

Mr. Greenwood: On the question of Palestine, I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, in view of the conversations which may be starting very shortiv, it would be most injudicious of this House to have a discussion. But once the conversations are concluded, then, certainly, I think it is perfectly well understood that we really must deal with the question of Palestine. What I said about foreign affairs still stands. We will not shirk a broad discussion on foreign affairs. After discussions through the usual channels, no doubt we can agree about a date. On the question of the situation in Germany, if that matter could be pursued through the usual channels we shall be as helpful as we can; and if there is a strong determination on the part of hon. Members on all sides of the House to have it, subject to other Parliamentary considerations I should certainly not stand in the way.

Mr. Churchill: Adverting to the proposition which I was asked to mention by an hon. Member on the benches opposite, the Vote of Censure, timing must always be considered as well as urgency. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Government consider we can have the three days' Debate promised on the economic and financial state of the nation. If he would state what his ideas are about that, it might be possible to combine the Vote of Censure and that Debate by means of a reasoned Amendment, and thus save the Government time for other Business.

Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for hon. Members


on these benches to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I want to know where he is searching for ammunition for his Vote of Censure.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members cannot ask questions of those who are not responsible for the Government.

Mr. Greenwood: . I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer to co-operate in saving Government time. So far as. I am concerned, if the right hon. Gentleman—and this is within his own hands—wishes to move a Vote of Censure and couple it with the economic situation of the country I should be very delighted. I would say, however, that there is no pledge about a three day Debate, though we can argue that through the usual channels. However, it is our intention—

Mr. Churchill: It was promised.

Mr. Greenwood: We never made any promise about it. I think' three days were asked for, but one does not always necessarily get what is asked for. I am always willing to save two or three days; that is to the good. I think that within the next month or so—certainly before the end of next month—we are prepared to deal with the economic situation of the country. [Interruption.] I cannot deal with you here. That is a challenge to you. You can deal with it then.

Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Greenwood: It is our intention within the next month or so to provide an opportunity for a Debate on the economic position of the country, and if the right hon. Gentleman cares to couple that with a Vote of Censure it is within his discretion, and we shall be happy to accept it.

Mr. Churchill: Frankly, I seek to facilitate the course of Business in the House, in the interests of the House having the power to discuss all the things it wants to discuss. I have always favoured—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will bear' me out—the idea of using Supply Days for the purpose of discussing topics which the House wants to discuss. In the same way, undoubtedly if a full opportunity is given for discussing the economic and

financial state of the nation before the end of February, by means of a reasoned Amendment we should be able to raise the general issue with the Government. If that could be discussed by the two sides of the House through the usual channels, it would be very satisfactory. I am bound to say, in' view of the considerable and immense implications of the subject, three days seem to me to be very necessary, and we are not inclined to give up the right of putting down a Vote of Censure unless the Debate is to be absolutely full.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, in view of this half hour's Debate every Thursday, are you satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the usual channels work at all? The usual channels are referred to in almost every question and answer on these occasions, and it does seem, to some of us at any rate, that the usual channels are not being used, and the House of Commons wastes at least half an hour every Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion and not a point of Order.

Sir Robert Young: I did inform the Leader of the House that I wanted to ask the following question. I regret that he is not here, but I will ask the acting Leader of the House whether the Government have considered the last Report of the Select Committee on Procedure; and, if so, whether it is their intention to do anything in relation to the recommendations that were submitted in that Report?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question. The other day there was a Question on the Order Paper, on the issue of the recommendations of the Select Committee, but the hon. Member who put it down was not present. I think I am right in saying the last Report of this Committee was issued about two and a half months ago. We have not had time to consider it yet. It is our intention to do so at an early date, and once we have—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite chide us for moving too quickly, and then chide us for moving too slowly.

Mr. Hogg: Both are true.

Mr. Greenwood: I would say that, as soon as we have considered the Report, we shall take the earliest opportunity- of making a statement to the House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL (REPRINTING)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I rise to ask, Mr. Speaker, if you will tell the House the reasons for the reprinting of the Town and Country Planning Bill.

Mr. Speaker: The responsibility is, of course, entirely mine. After the Bill had been printed it was decided that certain provisions imposed a charge upon the people, and should, therefore, have been printed in italics. Those provisions are Subsections (1), (2), and (4) of Clause 62,

and Subsection (3) of Clause 78. I may add that it was a very technical matter. I understand that the draftsmen took different views. It was put up to me, as a kind of Solomon, to give an answer. I could not cut it in two, and so I thought it better to have everything concerned in italics in both Clauses. But, of course, not a single word of the Bill is changed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask a question on Business? I have been rising for half an hour.

Mr. Speaker: We have already been half an hour on Business.

BILLS PRESENTED

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL

"to provide for an additional type of birth certificate," presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr. Ede, Miss Wilkinson and Mr. Key; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to alter the maximum annual subscription which county councils may pay to the County Councils Association, "presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr.

Ede and Mr. Key; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.']

The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 120.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[4.3 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, B.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jay, D. P. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Deer, G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Austin, H. Lewis
Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Awbery, S. S.
Dobbie, W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Ayles, W. H.
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bacon, Miss A.
Donovan, T.
Keenan, W.


Balfour, A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.


Barstow, P. G.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M.


Barton, C.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Battley, J. R.
Dye, S.
Kinley, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Belcher, J. W.
Edelman, M.
Lang, G.


Benson, G.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S.


Beswick, F.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Binns, J.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Blackburn, A. R.
Ewart, R.
Lever, N. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Levy, B. W.


Boardman, H.
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Foot, M. M.
Lipson, D. L.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Praser, T. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Gallacher, W.
Longden, F.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lyne, A. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
McAdam, W.


Brown. T. J (Ince)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McAllister, G.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Grey, C. F.
McGhee, H. G.


Burden, T. W.
Grierson, E.
Mack, J. D.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Byers, Frank
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McKinlay, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gruffyd, Prof. W. J.
McLeavy, F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gunter, R. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Champion, A. J.
Guy, W. H.
Mallalieu, J. P W.


Chater, D
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hall, W. G.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marquand, H. A.


Cobb, F. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Mathers, G


Cocks, F. S.
Harrison, J.
Medland, H. M.


Coldrick, W
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, F.


Collick, P.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


 Collindridge, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Mikardo, Ian


Collins, V. J.
Hicks, G.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hobson, C. R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holman, P.
Monslow, W.


Cook, T. F.
House, G.
Moody, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hoy, J.
Morley, R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hubbard, T.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Daggar, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Murray, J. D.


Daines, P.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Nally, W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hynd, Rt. Hon. J. B. (Attercliffe)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Irving, W. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)




Noel-Buxton, Lady
Scott-Elliot, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Orbach, M.
Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr. E. A. A
Usborne, Henry


Parker, J.
Sharp, Granville
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Viant, S. P.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wadsworth, G.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skeffington, A. M.
Walkden, E.


Pearson, A.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Walker, G. H.


Peart, Capt. T F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Piratin, P.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Sorensen, R. W.
Warbey, W. N.


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Watson, W. M.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stamford, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Proctor, W. T.
Stephen, C.
Weitzman, D.


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pursey, Cmdr. H
Strachey, J.
West, D. G.


Randall, H. E.
Stross, Dr. B.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Ranger, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Roes-Williams, D. R.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Wilkes, L.


Reeves, J.
Swingler, S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Symonds, A. L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Robens, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Willis, E.


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
 Wyatt, W.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thurtle, E.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Royle, C.
Tiffany, S.



Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A
Timmons, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Sargood, R.
Titterington, M. F.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan


Scollan, T.
Tolley, L.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Osborne, C.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Grant, Lady
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Prescott, Stanley


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Haughton, S. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Langford-Holt, J.
Snadden, W. M.


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


De la Bère, R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Digby, S. W.
Marsdon, Capt. A.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Drayson, G. B.
Medlicott, F.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Drewe, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Rlchmond)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Duthie, W. S.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Nicholson, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Gammans, L. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to 'authorise further increases under, and otherwise amend, the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and to continue that Act in force as amended, and to authorise increases in pensions to which that Act does not apply, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session, operating from such date as may be specified therein—

(a) increasing the limits of means specified in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, from one hundred and fifty pounds a year to two hundred pounds a year in the case of an unmarried person (as defined in that Act), and from two hundred pounds a year to two hundred and seventy-five pounds a year in the case of a married person (as so defined);
(b) providing that where a pension is greater than such as can be increased under the said Act of 1920 but less than the amount to which a smaller pension could be increased thereunder it may be increased to that amount."

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

4.12 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order. Some of us would like your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and perhaps the most convenient way to raise the point is to ask you whether you can tell us what Amendments you propose to call during the Debate. Some of us are not quite sure whether we shall be able to get in what we wish to get in, and a great deal will depend on the selection of Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: I propose to call the third Amendment on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), with which we shall be able to discuss the sixth Amendment at the same time. The fourth and fifth Amendments will then be taken,

also the last one on page 1045, and the first on page 1046. The second Amendment on that page is not being called. The remaining Amendments are being called.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Is not the Amendment standing in my name and that of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) to be taken?

The Deputy-Chairman: The first two Amendments are not being called.

Mr. Brown: Is this because of the terms of the Money Resolution, or for some other consideration?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not in Order to ask for the reasons which guide the Chair in the selection of Amendments.

Mr. Brown: In those circumstances, may I respectfully represent to you that this decision in fact makes it impossible for us to discuss the adequacy or inadequacy of this Bill? When the Financial Resolution was submitted to the House by the Financial Secretary, we were told that it would be drawn in terms wide enough for us to table Amendments on merit. If this decision be not reconsidered, the scope of our Debate this afternoon must be exceedingly restricted.

Mr. Burden: On a point of Order. Does not this put the Committee in very great difficulty? The information you have given, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, is of value to the Committee and has been given to help us, but it will put us into difficulties if the matter is pursued in the way in which it is being pursued.

The Deputy-Chairman: The information was given for the convenience of the Committee, but it is not for the Committee to ask the reasons why an Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Brown: In those circumstances, I place on record my protest at the selection of Amendments in such a way as to prevent the Committee from discussing the merits of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now quite out of Order.

Mr. Brown: I may be out of Order, but I am morally right.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Morley.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Morley: I do not know whether I should be in Order or not in moving this Amendment—

The Deputy-Chairman: The first two Amendments on the Order Paper have not been selected. I am now calling upon the hon. Member to move the third Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of Order, may I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Beaumont, that there are really two issues involved in this Bill? One of them is the question of how far—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now out of Order. I have called upon the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) to move, if he so wishes, the third Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. Brown: I again protest against this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] It is not I who am out of Order; it is the Deputy-Chairman.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I recall your attention, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to what the hon. Gentleman has just said? He said you were out of Order. Are hon. Members allowed to say things like that?

The Deputy-Chairman: Obviously it is decidedly out of Order to make such a remark with regard to the Chair.

Mr. Brown: How can one, then, with great respect, put to you the simple issue I want to put? May I be allowed to put that issue?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is surely conversant with the Rules of the House. He has been a Member for a long time, and he should know that the only matters which can be discussed are those arising out of Amendments which have been selected.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I desire to ask you whether the new procedure of the House is that, when a most gross charge is made against the Chair, all the Chair can say is that it is out of Order. Should not the hon. Gentleman withdraw?

The Deputy-Chairman: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw without an indication from the Chair. It is quite wrong to question the

conduct of the Chair. If an hon. Member disagrees, there are ways and means in which he can make his protest through the learned Clerks at the Table.

Mr. Brown: The last thing I want to do is to come into conflict with you, Mr. Beaumont, either in your official or your personal capacity. I withdraw the allegation I made. But may I be allowed to put this point?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now placing me in something of a difficulty. I do not think he is treating me, either as the occupant of the Chair or as an individual, quite fairly. I have called upon the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) to move the third Amendment on the Order Paper.

CLAUSE 1.—(Raising of limits for, and rates of, pensions increases.)

Mr. Morley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out "forty", and to insert "fifty".
I did not come to this Committee prepared to move this Amendment, as I was more interested in the first Amendment which has not been called. Rather than allow this Amendment to lapse, however, I will move it. The Bill says that if the pension does not exceed £100 a year in the case of a married person or £75 a year in the case of an unmarried person, the increase shall be 40 per cent. of the amount of the pension. These pensions will be very small, and a 40 per cent. increase will mean a comparatively small increase in actual amount. A person with a pension of £90 a year will get an increase of £36 a year, a very small increase. As to the higher rates of pension, it will be possible for a married person with £350 a year pension to get an increase of £60 a year.
A single person with £300 a year pension would have an increase of £45. It will be seen, therefore, that as the Bill is drafted, the smallest increases are given to those with the smallest pensions. As these increases are given on the basis of need, and not on an actuarial basis, calculated on contributions made by pensioners during during their contributory periods, it would appear that there is a case for a larger increase for those who are most in need. For these reasons, I move that the figure of 50 be substituted for the figure of 40 in Clause 1 (2).

Mr. W. R. Williams: In supporting this Amendment I should like to say a few words regarding the action which has already been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary. I, personally, wish that this, whole subject had come up for reconsideration in regard to the basic principles of the 1944 Act, so that we should have been in a position to deal with all the many injustices and anomalies of the parent Act, but I realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the responsibility of holding the delicate balance between the Treasury on the one hand and on the other the demands made upon him by all sections of the community. I should have liked to see a considerable all-round improvement, but if, as stated by the Financial Secretary on a previous occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not in a position to undertake a complete review, I have to ask myself since the possibility of concessions is to be limited, which concessions I would most strongly support, and which are the cases of greatest need. I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that I should like to see something further done for the class of persons dealt with by this Amendment.
Hon. Members who were present at the Second Reading Debate will remember that I submitted that there was an unanswerable case for improvement in so far as the lowest paid categories were concerned. My first reason for coming to that conclusion is that those who receive pensions of less than £100 per annum, more nearly approach the category of persons which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) had in mind, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the original Act of 1944. He stated on that occasion that it was primarily intended to deal with cases of real hardship, and I submit that this Amendment deals with' the cases of severe hardship which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. It might be argued, as I think it was argued by the right hon. Gentleman in 1944, that during a period of national emergency most members of the community have to stand up to some measure of additional hardship. I do not think it can be disputed that, even today, that still holds good. But I suggest to the Committee that there comes a point beyond which we cannot go without im-

posing a real measure of hardship upon an individual. There comes a point at which if we do less than is reasonable, we are imposing a very severe burden upon a certain group of people. In my opinion, the category dealt with by this Amendment fall into this class. I am, therefore, very disappointed indeed that the Government, through the Financial Secretary, have not found it possible to meet the plea which I and other hon. Members made on Second Reading, that there should be an increase beyond 40 per cent. for persons in receipt of pensions of less than £100 per annum. I pleaded with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the Financial Secretary, that he should make one further effort, even if it cost a little money, and that, in justice and in equity, he would be doing the right thing.
There are thousands of ex-Post Office people who fall into this category, and who are in receipt of pensions of less than 42s. per week. Parliament has already approved this figure as being the minimum upon which a man and his wife ought to be called upon to exist—that was in connection with the National Insurance Act. During the Recess, I had an opportunity to study the proposition I put to the Financial Secretary during the Second Reading, and I have been able to get some more figures. I am not going to weary the Committee by quoting them all because I understand that a number of hon. Members would like to take part in the Debate on this Amendment, and I shall, therefore, confine myself to examples covering the group of postmen. There are other grades, including telephonists, who fall into the same group, but I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to the case of postmen who retired before 1938. These men were qualified to receive the maximum amount of pension, which is based on 40 years' service. This is what they receive at the present time under the 1944 Act. In Class 3 offices—that is in the smaller provincial offices, which constitute by far the largest number of offices—the weekly equivalent of the pension granted is about 41s. 6d. per week. In Class 2, which covers intermediate offices, a man receives 43s. per week. In Class 1 offices, which cover provincial offices, including such offices as Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Edinburgh


and Glasgow, men receive 44s. 6d. a week, and in London it would be 49s. per week.
4.30 p.m.
I would like the Committee to know that these people have been retired for at least eight or nine years, and I think it is reasonable to assume that they have already long exhausted whatever little savings they were able to accumulate from their meagre wages while still in the Government service. I would also like to point out that these men were in excepted occupations during their period of active service, with the result that they are not entitled to any benefits under the contributory pensions scheme, and are entirely dependent on the pension which they get for their service with the Government. During the war, a great deal may not have been heard about this hardship because, either from a deep sense of duty to the nation in a time of emergency, added, possibly, to a degree of real economic necessity, arising from the rapid rise in the cost of living, many returned to their offices to resume their old jobs or start new ones. These men—and this is equally true of women—carried on uncomplainingly and bravely during the war, despite infirmities and advancing years, and did very effective work for the nation. When they returned to do this work, at a time of crisis, their pension was absorbed into their wages, with the result that the nation saved their pension for seven or eight years while they were working at a lower rate than was proper for the job.
During the war, these people augmented their normal pension through working beyond the normal age of retirement. They are now too old to carry on. Many are above 65 or 70, although I admit that those over 70 are eligible for consideration for non-contributory insurance benefit, subject to a means test. But the fact remains that these people now have to fall back on their pension, with no additional credit whatever for the service which they gave for six or seven or more years during the war. The position of the men I am referring to—those who have qualified to obtain full pension rights based on 40 years' service—is very bad, but there are others who could not, by the very nature of things, have put in the full qualifying period of 40 years. I refer to postmen and male porters and

others who came into the service of the Post Office and the nation after being in the Forces. Few have had any pension at all in respect of their service with the Forces. Possibly, their maximum period for pension would range from 30 to 35 years. I have tried to be fair towards the Financial Secretary by taking what I regard as a fair average. I am basing my figures on an average of 32 years' service. Under the 1944 Act, these people will receive an annual pension of £61 in the provinces, ranging up to £73 in London. Under the present amending Bill, they will get, according to my calculation, £88 in the provinces, ranging up to £102 in London. This Amendment would give them £91 in the provinces and up to £110 in London.
The figures in the Amendment correspond roughly to the annual equivalent to the 42s. a week which we have provided under the National Insurance scheme, and I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to agree that the nation should provide these people with, at least, the wherewithal to obtain bare existence. On this side of the Committee, we all accept that in the present condition of things even the 42s. envisaged under the National Insurance Act is sufficient only to keep body and soul together. Is it, therefore, unreasonable to ask the Government to give these people, who have served so loyally and faithfully for 30 or 40 years, that standard of living which we have already provided for for old age pensioners under the contributory scheme? I should like the Financial Secretary to say whether he thinks it is just to tell these people that, if their pension from the Government service is not sufficient, they can seek public assistance.
That is the alternative unless this Amendment is accepted. These people have earned every penny of their pension. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) during the Second Reading Debate said that at every arbitration court we have attended—and he and I have attended many in our time—the Treasury emphasised more than once to the tribunal that the pension was an important factor in the wages scales of the people whose claims were under consideration. It is my opinion that when a pension was conceded to these people it was never assumed that it would not be sufficient to keep body and soul together. This is not a question of charity;


it is a simple act of justice and fair play to those who have served the nation long and well.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I would like to begin by saying that I cordially endorse the effort which is being made in this Amendment to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to think again about this matter. There are many cases in which the circumstances are even worse than the examples quoted by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams). I think Members of the Committee will be aware that it is usually the case that a civil servant precedes his established service under the Crown with a period of unestablished service. In some cases, the period of unestablished service may run into many years. When the time comes to compute the pension, it is not calculated on the total length of a man's service in each case. Many of the men to whom my hon. Friend referred would not have 32 or 40 years' service, and would, therefore, not get three-quarters of the full pension or the full pension. It is not calculated on total service, but on the established service—which may be only half the total service—and on part of the non-established service. But none of the non-established service put in prior to the end of the last war is taken into account. Therefore, one has to take into account here, not only men with 40 years' service or even 32, cases which themselves reveal the miserable figures quoted by my hon. Friend, but many scores of thousands of cases where the amount of actual service which can be taken into account for pension purposes will be less than even the lower of the two figures which my hon. Friend quoted. If we are to deal with this business on the basis of need, on the basis of relief of distress, there is every reason to commend the Amendment to the support of the Committee. Nothing could better illustrate the mental confusion which lies behind this Bill, and nothing could better illustrate the calamitous failure of the Government to look at this matter in principle, than the Debate we are having on this Amendment.
There are three conceivable bases on which we might determine the amount of increase to give to these pensioners.

One conceivable basis would be that they should receive a sum which would restore the purchasing power of the numeral of £s. d. on which the pension is based. I am not asking for that at the moment. I am merely saying that would be one basis in principle. The second basis in principle would be to say "No. What we will do is to increase the pensions in the light of the rise of the cost of living, in exactly the same proportion as we reduced them for corresponding changes in the index figure, when the cost-of-living curve was going down towards its nadir in 1935."Neither of these bases is adopted in this Bill. The third basis would be to give most where the need was greatest. This Clause does not do it, and even the Amendment, which I am bound to support against the still less generous provisions of the Clause, does not do it either. Neither the Clause nor the Amendment adopts either the first, second, or third basis, because if we adopted the third basis we should obviously be giving a much bigger increase to the people with under £100 a year, than to the people getting £300, £400, or £500 a year. The precipitating and fundamental cause of nine-tenths of the issues which have been raised in the public service during my life has been the complete failure to think clearly in principle before tackling the individual point involved. This Bill is a first rate example.
4.45 p.m.
What then am I to do? I want to attack this Bill root and branch. I want to characterise it as a mean, ungenerous, unworthy, inadequate Measure of which we ought to be ashamed, but I cannot do that at this stage. When we were on the Second Reading, I stated the case for a logical approach in principle to this problem, and I recommended to the Government the second of the three alternatives which I have mentioned, namely, that we should give, when the cost of living goes up, an increase corresponding to the amount by which we reduced the pensions when the cost of living went down. Could there be anything more fairer and more defensible than that?
What are the facts? From 1921 to 1939, the cost of living went down. Every time it went down by five points, the amount of the pension was reduced.


There was no argument then as to whether a man was married or unmarried; whether a widower with a housekeeper should count as a married man or an unmarried man. There was no argument whether a man was under 60 or above; no argument as to what were his private means, and whether he could afford to make up the amount out of his own pocket It was an automatic, mathematically merciless cut. From 1935 onwards, the cost of living went up, and it has been going up ever since, although I do not pretend to say by what number of points. We have an index figure which I regard as practically worthless. The index shows that the cost of living has gone up by 33⅓per cent. The common experience of most of us is that it has gone up by at least 100 per cent. However that may be, I submit that taking the index figure, we ought.to give as much when the cost of living is rising as we took away when the cost of living was falling.
This Clause adopts none of the three conceivable bases, and it is not logically just or fair. It does not follow out the logic even of the eleemosynary approach. I should like to vote against both the Clause and the Amendment. I wish that this Committee would join with me in so doing, as a demonstration to the Government that what we want is a Bill that deals adequately with every Clause, including Clause 1, and has regard to the position to which our old age pensioners have been reduced. I cannot do that because I know that, first of all, on this side of the Committee, I should not get the support that the justice of the case demands. Judging by the speech of my hon. Friend above the Gangway on the Second Reading, he felt that the road to hell was paved with increased pensions. That being so, I cannot expect him to support me in the demand for a radical approach to this problem. I cannot expect hon. Members opposite to vote for me. Why? Because, whenever a trade union interest comes into conflict with a party interest, it is the trade union interest which is subordinated to the party interest. The whip would crack, and I should be voted down even by most of the Civil Service representatives in this House, as well as by the rest of the party opposite. So it seems that there are very faint prospects of securing justice in this matter.
I do not know what the Financial Secretary will do about this, and if he intends to give us this miserable 50 per cent. I will give way if he wishes to reply now. I thought there would be no impetuosity in the rush to give it. In these circumstances, all I can do is to ask my colleagues opposite whether this Amendment will be withdrawn if the Financial Secretary says that he cannot do anything for us? If not, I shall vote for the 50 per cent. as against the 40. If I am not given an opportunity of doing so, I shall reserve the rest of what I wish to say until we reach the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Randall: I want to ass ciate myself with the plea that has been made to the Financial Secretary to accept the Amendment. I have reason to believe that the Financial Secretary will not be unmoved when I remind him of some of the things that he said in the Second Reading Debate. In referring to a yardstick, my right hon. Friend said:
The only yardstick used, of course, is commonsense and hardship in relation to the cost of living today and the pension which the individual draws.
He went on to say:
It is the worst paid of those, with the lowest pensions, whom we desire to help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 694–5.]
I want to show that we ought to apply commonsense to this matter, and in my view to apply commonsense is to compare the cost of living addition that is being paid to the staff in the Civil Service at the present time and the proposal made in this Clause with regard to the cost of living. That is a fair and commonsense method. Let me begin by taking the case of a boy messenger in inner London. At 18 years of age, he has a wage, with consolidation, taken off for the time being, of £1 12s. 6d. a week, and with consolidation, that is to say, with the cost of living amount, he receives £210s. 6d. a week. That represents an increase, to the boy messenger on a wage of £112s. 6d., of 18s. a week.

Mr. W. J. Brown: What is the percentage?

Mr. Randall: I have not the percentage. A postman who has done 40 years' service will get a basic pension of £115s. a week. The effect of this Bill will be to give him £29s., an increase of only 14s. to the retired man on less pay than a


boy messenger in inner London. Surely, if it is right to give to the established staff in the Civil Service a certain percentage of cost of living increase, that same increase is fully justified in the case of old age pensioners outside. To take the case of a boy messenger on a wage of £116s. 6d. a week at 19 years of age, with consolidation he gets x00A3;217s. 6d., an increase of 21s. The old age pensioner who retired after 1938 gets £118s. That is a fair comparison with the £116s. 6d. of a boy messenger. A pensioner who retired after 1938 gets £213s. under this Bill, with the cost of living added, which represents an increase of 15s., whereas the boy messenger gets an increase of 21s. If the yardstick of commonsense is to be applied to the old age pensioners, then the cost of living rate that has been given to the established staff should be given to the retired staff. The proposal in the Amendment to make an increase from 40 per cent. to 5c per cent. would achieve the purpose that we have. It would, broadly speaking, give the same cost of living increase to the old age pensioners as is given to the men at present in the Civil Service. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to recognise that common sense demands that this should be done.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I would like briefly to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) placed my hon. Friends and myself in a dilemma when he invited us to go into the Division Lobby. He said we would not do it, because in a clash with trade union interests the Government always won. The hon. Member is a trade union official. In the course of the years he has accepted many things which he did not like, but he has accepted them because in doing so he was picking up something for his members. Today, I appreciate that the Labour Government have decided to spend a few million pounds improving the lot of these pensioners, and I propose to pick it up. My complaint is as follows. I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby in hoping that at some time the Government will deal with the question of pensions in a comprehensive and equitable manner. It is the inequity of the thing that I dislike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) gave some

examples, and I want to emphasise them. My hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) was very generous in that he took the maximum, but that is not the reality. In the postal service in this country there are about 67,000 men, one half of whom come from the Colours, and have no hope of doing 40 years of pensionable service. I put the average service at 20 years. Therefore, when we are talking about their pensions, it is not a question of 4o/8oths of £100 a year, but 20/80ths of £100 a year. To give an example, when I was serving I took a check on the number of men working in a particular office who were re-employed pensioners. Of 100 men, 40 had pensions of under 20s. a week. I wish the Financial Secretary would look into this matter some time and let us have the figures. Forty of those 100 men had pensions of under 20s. a week, and each one of those men had good grounds for complaining of inequitable treatment. If his service with the Colours had been counted, that would have altered his pension. If his service as an assistant postman had been counted, that would have altered his pension. If his service as an auxiliary postman had been taken into account, that also would have altered the pension. I ask hon. Members to remember the case from Battersea, or Chelsea, of a man who had given 40 years to the service and received no pension. Those are the things that hurt. Consider the case of the re-employed pensioners. There is, for example, an ex-Serviceman who has given perhaps 20 years' service; at 60 years, of age he takes his pension, and then comes back to serve his country during the war. The service given to the Post Office after he was pensioned cannot count for pension. That is not fair and equitable. I should have thought that in reviewing these circumstances something ought to be done to see that such service is taken into account for pension.
I appreciate what the Government are doing, but I hope they will appreciate that there are many real grievances, and that it is time something was done to settle these matters. I support the Amendment. I hope that in the area of these low pensions, the Financial Secretary will be able to accept the modest proposal in the Amendment. In this area, the men have given their country many


years of service, much of which was not pensionable, and surely the years that did not count for pension could now be set in the balance, so as to do something to help the men. Like the hon. Member for Rugby I should like to have seen a more comprehensive Amendment. I share with him the view that one of the greatest inequities on a man who has served his country and earned his pension is to be told that he will not get the same treatment as others, because he happens to be single. I think that' is the limit. I do hope that when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replies to the Debate he will be able to say that he accepts the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Walker: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes I should like to ask him whether it is not a fact that when a pensioner during the war went into private employment, his pension was still paid by the Department?

Mr. W. J. Brown: Yes.

Mr. Walker: And is it also a fact that by going into Government work, he lost his pension?

Mr. Brown: That is right.

Mr. Harry Wallace: If I may reply to my hon. Friend, he is quite right in what he says. If a man went to outside employment he continued to draw his pension, but it he went back to Government service as a re-employed pensioner, then his pension and earnings together could not exceed his pre-retirement earnings. Then there is the other case of the man who went out with 20 years' service where the maximum years were 40. If he goes back into the Post Office and serves another six years, the Treasury will not allow him to count the extra six years, and so he does not get a pension on the basis of twenty-six eightieths. I think that that is one of the unkindest things done by the Government to one who has been in the public service.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): A great deal of what has been said and very properly said has been criticism of the wages that were paid in the Government service in the past, and of the pensions that were based thereon. This Bill does not deal with the wage and salary structure of the Civil Service, nor, for that 'matter, with the

pensions that have or have not been paid. In this Bill we are dealing with the situation as it is, and, because the cost of living has gone up as a result of the war, we are trying as far as we can to alleviate hardship for those with the smallest pensions. Therefore, all the criticisms which have been levelled at this Bill should have been levelled at the employees themselves, because it does show that they did not take their trade unionism as seriously as they should have and did not build up strong organisations. I am making that criticism for what it is worth. In the past, in certain sections of Government employment—though I may say not in all—if the union had had more of the employees behind it, perhaps it could have got better terms and conditions than unfortunately it did.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I want, if I may, to reply to those remarks. Several of the hon. Members who have made contributions on this aspect of the question belong to associations which have a pretty good history behind them in the matter of agitation for better wages and superannuation, and I do hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will qualify the remarks he has just made.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In so far as my remarks need qualifying I do so. I would pay, as I did on the Second Reading, my tribute to the trade unions for getting better conditions for those employed by the State, but the point I am now making—and I think that it is a fair and legitimate one—is that it is against the rates, and conditions in the Service that that criticism this afternoon has been levelled and not against the provisions of this Bill, in which we are trying to help those who have the smallest pension with which to meet the rise in the cost of living.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) made a very forcible speech, but I am afraid that his sojourn on the other side of the Atlantic has made him a little rusty on the history of this matter, because he indicated in the course of his remarks that all Civil Service pensions had dropped with the cost of living. My information was not in line with what the hon. Gentleman said, but in order to make quite sure I had inquiries made, and I find that whilst it is true that certain pensions in the Civil Service did go down, it is not true to say that all or that the majority did. In so far as they


did go down, the people in that position were given an alternative scheme under the 1944 Act, so that they could choose whichever suited them best—either under Section 1 or Section 2 of the 1944 Act. That being so, they have had made up to them some, if not all, of the loss they had suffered. I admit that as a result of the cost-of-living sliding scale in the 'twenties and early 'thirties some of those pensions did fall before they were actually stabilised.

Mr. W. J. Brown: We had better get this thing straight. If the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing a technicality—and I hope he is not—it would be true to say that not all Civil Service pensions were reduced when the cost of living fell, but purely as a technicality. The cost-of-living bonus started to come down in 1921. It is now 1947, and 21 from 47 leaves 26. Every man who went out on pension up to 1935 has had his pension reduced under the reductions in force. Since 1935, the men who have gone out on pension have not had their pensions reduced, but then how could we reduce pensions when the cost of living was steadily rising? What ought to have been done was to increase the pensions which had already been reduced. What was done was that no increase was given, either to the men who went out after I935, or to the men who had gone out before 1935, when the cost of living began to rise. So far from being rusty, I think I am particularly bright.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think that I had better pursue this matter too far. I have made my point, and it has been -substantiated by the interruption and explanation made by the hon. Member for Rugby. He has admitted that some pensions were reduced before they were stabilised. We have to remember that here in this Bill we are doing one thing and one thing only, and that is to give an increase in pensions because of the rise in the cost of living. It is true that many of us were in the House in 1944, but that Measure was passed by a Government of a different complexion from the one now in office. We are building on the edifice which was erected in the past and trying to improve it if we can.
The percentage increase given is 40 per cent. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby will probably disagree with me

here, but the official cost-of-living index figure is about 31 or 32 per cent. above prewar, so that even 40 per cent. is above the actual cost-of-living figure as shown in the official index published monthly by the Ministry of Labour. In addition, we have to remember the considerable subsidies which are being found by the Government from the general body of taxpayers in order to pin down that cost of living. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated this afternoon in reply to a Question, these subsidies this year amount to over £300 million. That sum quite definitely is helping people with small pensions, who were in Government employment, to meet the increased cost of living.

Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is really his own personal experience that the cost of living has risen only 30 per cent.? Is he telling the Committee what is his own personal experience? Surely we are not going to be fobbed off with this sort of "tripe," if I may so call it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is a free country and the hon. Gentleman is entitled to call anything I say "tripe." I assure him that I should not object. I am only telling him and the Committee that the figure of the official cost-of-living index is as I have indicated. If we accepted this Amendment, the cost would be something over £1 million, and that brings me to this point. We want these pensioners to get as much as we can possibly afford, and we are attempting to improve the 1944 Act for them. But the present Amendment would cost as least £1 million in addition to over £9million mentioned in the Financial Memorandum which precedes this Bill.

Mr. Harry Wallace: It would be a diminishing cost.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The cost would, of course, be a diminishing one. But these percentages, particularly that which we are now discussing, were agreed with the people who were most interested in this matter.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Who were they?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am about to tell the Committee. We went to the T.U.C., and we also consulted the staff side of


the Civil Service National Whitley Council. I do not think I am being unfair to either body when I indicate to the Committee that the figure of 40 per cent. was theirs and not ours. Having obtained that figure, and learned from them that in their view, as the result of their knowledge and experience of these matters, that 40 per cent. was a fair percentage, we then consulted, as I think I indicated on Second Reading, all the other bodies including representative organisations of local authorities in England and Scotland, to obtain their views in this matter. Again, I think I am saying nothing I should not say, when I tell the Committee that some of these bodies were not at all enthusiastic about the percentage proposed, but that we eventually agreed that 40 per cent. was reasonable and that it was accepted, on behalf of the local authorities everywhere, that the figure of 40 per cent. should go into the Bill. Quite definitely, therefore, there was general agreement between representatives of organised workers and the authorities, both local and national, including police authorities and others who would have to pay these pensions, that 40 per cent. was reasonable.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This is a matter of some consequence, and before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I would like to question him about it. He says that he consulted first the T.U.C. If so, he consulted them at a time when no single one of the Civil Service unions was affiliated to the T.U.C, nor could it be so affiliated, and I should like to know why he consulted the T.U.C. on a matter which was no concern of theirs.

Mr. Messer: There are other pensioners.

5.15 P.m.

Mr. Brown: So far as the Civil Service is concerned none of its organisations was or could be affiliated to the T.U.C. My second point is this: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the staff side of the National Civil Service Whitley Council agreed, either in writing or verbally that it would accept the figure of 40 per cent.? I think it is important that we should have a categorical reply to this point.

Mr. Burden: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies may I ask him to give consideration to what I think is quite a wrong assertion on the part of the hon.

Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), that this matter is primarily a Civil Service one? There were other organisations involved, and the T.U.C. itself, prior to any direct association with Civil Service Unions, was pressing the unions on these matters with regard to improvements. I think it quite an unwarrantable claim that it was entirely a matter of the Civil Service organisations.

Mr. Morley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman (MAJOR MILNER): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the following two Amendments are considered together.

Mr. Messer: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(b)If the pension exceeds one hundred pounds a year but does not exceed one hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eightpence a year the authorised increase shall be the amount of forty pounds a year.
As one principle goes through all four Amendments in my name of which this is the first, I do not propose to do more than make one speech. I think that if the principle of my first Amendment were accepted, it would not be necessary for me to do anything more in the matter. If it is not accepted, I shall be able to do very little after I make my speech. To put it simply, the Amendment has for its object the harmonising of the rate of progression of increase. The Clause as it stands leaves the percentages in such a way as to bring about differences which do not appear on the surface, and I am not sure that it would be easy for me to explain to the Committee how they work, except by giving an illustration. The words of the Clause are:
if the pension does not exceed one hundred pounds. …
If we assume that there is a pension of £90, then there would be an increase of 40 per cent., or £36. If the pension is £100, there will be an increase of £40, that is a difference of £4. But if the pension happens to be £10 more than £100, that is £110, the increase will be £33. which in this order of progression, will be £7 less than the previous increase. If the pension is £120, then the increase is £35. My Amendment is intended to bring those rates of progression into harmony. There is nothing more in it than


the tidying up of this provision so as to avoid anomalies which will arise, it the Bill goes through, as at present drafted.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I should like to support what the hon. Member has said. He described the object of his Amendment very clearly and I do not think there is any need for me to say more on that point. The single example given will show that if it is right that the increase in the case of a pension of £90 should be £36 and also right that in the case of a pension of £120 it should be £36, then surely between the two there should be no anomaly or inconsistency of the kind that has been indicated. I believe we are suggesting here only one extra graduation in the case of a married pensioner and one in the case of a single pensioner, and the principle seems to be adopted already in paragraph (c) of Subsection (2) of this Clause. If the Amendment is accepted, the result will be to eliminate inconsistencies which may be a source of aggravation. The extra cost cannot be considerable, and there will be no administrative difficulties, so I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can say straight away that we accept the four Amendments to which my hon. Friend has referred. They tidy up the Bill, and they help pensioners who are on the borderline and who otherwise might suffer. We do not want them to suffer. We want them to get every conceivable benefit within the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 7, leave out "pounds," and insert:
and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eight pence".
In line 23, at the end, insert:
(6) if the pension exceeds seventy-five pounds a year but does not exceed one hundred pounds a year the authorised increase shall be the amount of thirty pounds a year.
In line 24, leave out "seventy-five," and insert "one hundred."—[Mr. Messer.]

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9 to leave out, "the month in which this Act is passed," and to insert "December, nineteen hundred and forty-six."
During the Second Reading Debate it was suggested that we might be able to make the Bill a Christmas box to pensioners if it could be passed into law in time, but we found that that was not possible. We now ask the Committee to agree to an Amendment the effect of which will be to make the Bill retrospective to 1st December, 1946.

Amendment agreed to

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Osbert Peake: Before we part with the Clause, I should like to make one or two observations. First, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury upon the honour which was recently conferred upon him, and which he so well deserves.
In the four Amendments which he has just accepted the object is to even out some of the inequalities which arise from the operation of the escalator provisions of Subsection (2), which deals with smaller pensions. A somewhat similar point arises on Subsection (3), which deals with the alternative scheme of pension increases. If the right' hon. Gentleman will look at the words of the Subsection he will see that in place of the words contained in Section 2 of the principal Act of 1944—which provide that where a pension exceeds £600 a year, but is less than £645 the pension may be increased to £645— there shall be substituted a provision that when the pension exceeds £600 a year, there shall be an addition to that pension of 5 per cent I can best illustrate the point I am putting by an example. Let us assume that where an increase has to be paid under the 1944 Act, the pension was £1 or £2 in excess of £600. In that event, the pension was made up, under the 1944 Act, to £645. By the provisions of the Bill, an addition of 5 per cent, will be made instead; that is to say, a pensioner who has a pension of £600 will receive an increase of £30 a year. That brings up the pension of a man who has just over £600 to £630. Under the Act of 1944, the increased amount would have been £645. The point I wish to bring Of the notice of the right hon. Gentleman is that certain pensioners may do worse under the provisions of the Bill than under


the provisions of the 1944 Act. Of course, where the pension is £625 or £630, the provision as to 5 per cent. addition will be more generous, but where the pension is only a few pounds, or even a few shillings in excess of £6oo a year, there are bound to be pensioners who will do worse under the substituted provisions of the Bill than under the Act of 1944.
Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to smooth out the inequalities of the escalator provisions for other classes of pensioners, I suggest that something of the same sort is required in Subsection (3). I rather think that the point which I have made could be met by providing that, in any event, nobody should come out worse under the new provisions than under the old. I am afraid that unless something on these lines is done, some pensioners who expect to benefit will find, after this Measure is passed that, in fact, they suffer a reduction. The point is, I think, one of some substance and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at it. He has tabled other Amendments which indicate that the Bill had not been considered in all its aspects before it was printed and circulated. This is a point in which the Bill is defective, and in which some alteration may be necessary.

Mr. Morley: Perhaps I can now raise the point which I had hoped to raise in the Amendment which was ruled out of Order, that of the widower, in relation to the proposed increase of pensions. The widower frequently suffers his bereavement just before or just after he receives his pension. He nearly always has a house, which needs cleaning and other domestic work. Generally speaking, these elderly men are unable to do the work themselves, and have to employ a housekeeper and provide her with wages and meals. This expense may amount to as much as £2 or £3 a week, and the widower may find himself worse off financially than when he was married. In relation to pensions increase it is proposed to treat him as a single man and give him a lower percentage of increase. Could not the widower who employs a housekeeper be treated, for the purposes of these proposals, as a married man? It would be a concession of value to the widower and of small cost to the Treasury. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give this matter his sympathetic consideration.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We would, of course, like to do what the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) suggests, but it would create more anomalies than it would cure. Although it is true that the widower may have to have someone to look after him, it is also true that a bachelor is in the same position when he reaches that age. The trouble is to know where to stop. There is the same anomaly under the Income Tax laws, where a widower, even if he has no children in the house, can get an allowance for a housekeeper and a bachelor cannot. Although we sympathise with the widower, we also have to sympathise with anyone, widower, bachelor, or spinster, who reaches this age and has to pay someone to look after them. We have taken advice on this, and it is impossible to accede to the request.
The reply to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is that those borderline cases are covered under Section 3 (3) of the 1944 Act, and they would get up to the £645 he mentioned in any event. I would, however, add that if he still feels that there is a query about it we will look at it again, although I am positive that I am right, and if any Amendment is necessary to iron out any anomaly that might occur, we will attempt to put it right in another place so that all pensioners, whoever they are, are treated alike.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Minor amendments of principal Act.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out Subsection (5).
We have proposed to iron out what was thought to be an anomaly because under the 1944 Act where a widow had several children, all the pensions could not be aggregated. We have looked at it again and do not see why we should. If a widow has several children, there is no reason why she should not have the benefit of the law under the 1944 Act. She is bringing up the children and normally will not have more than she needs, and we do not want to harass her in any shape or form. This is a small matter—a technical point—and there can be very few


cases, but we do not want by making additional provisions in this Bill to put some widows in jeopardy of losing any of the increases which would come under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out Subsection (6).
This concerns much the same point as the last Amendment. If a woman has a child who has an income of its own of over £52, under the law as it stands that child is not treated as a dependant, and it has been suggested in this Bill that it ought to be. We think that it is rather niggling and not worth doing, and that the law should remain as it is.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the- Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Short title, construction, citation and interpretation.)

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after "and," to insert:
except in so far as it is directed to be construed with the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924.
This Amendment is intended to bring this Clause into line with a new Clause which I propose to move later, and which we discussed last night when the Money Resolution passed through Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, line 43, after the third "Act," insert "except as aforesaid."

In page 5, line 45, leave out from "in," to the end of line 47, and add:
this Act to any enactment shall be construed, except where the context otherwise requires, as references to that enactment as amended by any other enactment, including this Act."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill

NEW CLAUSE.—(Increase of limits of income under Act of 1920.)

(1) The limits of one hundred and fifty pounds and two hundred pounds specified in paragraph (3) of Section two of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920 (which makes it

a condition for the increase of a pension under that Act that the means of the pensioner are less than one hundred and fifty pounds a year if unmarried, or two hundred pounds a year if married) and in proviso (ii) to paragraph 1 of the Schedule to that Act (under which no pension may be increased by an amount greater than is sufficient to bring the means of the pensioner up to the said limits) shall be increased to two hundred pounds and two hundred and seventy-five pounds respectively.

(2)In proviso (1) to paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the said Act of 1920 (which provides that if the amount to which a pension may be increased under the scale set out in that paragraph is less than the amount to which a smaller pension might be increased, it may be increased to the latter amount) after the words "might be in creased" there shall be inserted the words "or if a pension greater than such as may be increased under the said scale is less than the amount to which a smaller pension might be increased."

(3) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to any instalment of an increase of pension payable under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, in respect of any period beginning on or after the first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-six, irrespective of the date at which an increase of the pension was first granted; and any payment of such an instalment made before the passing of this Act shall be adjusted accordingly.

(4) This section shall be construed as one with the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Those who were in the House last night will remember that a Money Resolution was agreed to, in order that this afternoon we could insert this new Clause, if the Committee agreed to it. The point is quite a tiny one although it requires a rather complicated and lengthy Clause to put it into operation. It was brought to our notice during the Recess that certain pensioners who got their pension by retirement 25 or even 30 years ago, and who received a pensions increase after the last war under the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1920 and the further Act of 1924, might as a result of the recent increase given in the old age pension lose part or the whole of their increase under the 1920 Act. That was due to the fact that the income limits set in the Acts of 1920 and 1924 were too low. They were £150 in the case of a single man and £200 in the case of a married man. The new contributory pension of 26s. for a single individual and 42s. for a married couple


mean an increase in the rates of £41 12s. and £57 4s. a year and we are now taking power in this Clause—and we did in the Money Resolution—to raise the income, limits under the Acts of 1920 and 1924 to £200 and £275 respectively. That will permit this very small body of pensioners —there cannot be many of them left—to take advantage of and qualify for the increases in the new old-age pension which came into force on 1st October last.

Mr. Peake: This seems to me' to be a sensible and desirable provision. It will enable a very small number of pensioners to obtain the full benefit of the recent increase in the old age pension. I say a small number, because anyone who has retired already on a Civil Service pension in the year 1920 must, by now, be enjoying a very ripe old age. On the other hand, there may be a few policemen who retire at an earlier age than the ordinary retiring age and who will qualify under the new Clause, and we shall certainly support it.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

TITLE

Amendment made:

In line 3, after "amended," insert:
to authorise further increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.41 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: It is now too late to propose any more Amendments to this Bill, and all I can do is to register an opinion about it before it leaves us for the last time. I speak under stress of some emotion on this matter. This Bill deals with two things: It deals with the question of whether pensions should be increased, and it also deals with the question of the conditions upon which they should be increased, and under what restrictions they should be increased. There are, in fact, two facets to the Bill. The Bill preserves without alteration the restrictions and inhibitions of the 1944 Act. On that aspect of the case it leaves matters exactly as they were before this Bill was introduced.

On the second aspect, it makes certain extremely inadequate improvements upon the existing abominably low rates of pension. So, if one might say so, it fails to do either of the two jobs which we might hope that it would have done, and which I specifically asked that it should do.
As I said earlier, there are three conceivable lines of approach which we might have adopted. One was to increase the pensions mathematically on the basis of the increased cost of living. There was, in my opinion, a strong case to be made out for that line of approach. I know that view is not shared by some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway on this side. They take the view that the falling value of the £hit everybody with fixed incomes. It hit, for example, the man who had taken out an annuity and found, when he drew money under the annuity, that the pounds he was being paid would not buy what they used to do. It is certainly true that the rise in the cost of living has deflated the value of the pound for everybody. But, on the Second Reading of the Bill, I made the point I make now—if I am in Order, which I think I am—that we have a special responsibility to the category of people under this Bill. When dealing with the fixed income classes generally, the annuitant and so on, it might be argued that it was just the bad fortunes of war, that when they came to enjoy their annuity, they found the pounds were not worth so much as they used to be. However, the Government have no responsibility for those people except the general responsibility to the community, but here we are dealing with people who have spent their lives working for us, as servants of the State and as servants of this House. And I submit that they are entitled to be paid their pensions in pounds of the same value that the pound possessed at the time when they put their service in. To pay them something on which they cannot live, or can live only meanly and inadequately because the value of the pound has fallen, is a morally wrong thing for us to do.
I would like to give an illustration. Supposing. Mr. Deputy-Speaker,' that you or I had an old friend or servant who had worked for us faithfully for 40 years, on the understanding that when he or she retired we would make provision for their old age. Supposing it was then found that


the £1 or £2 a week determined upon was only worth 5s. or 10s. a week. We would not say that that absolved us from responsibility. We would say our responsibility was still to enable that old servant to live, and if the number of pounds we thought about earlier was not enough because of the rise in the cost of living, we would have to increase the number of pounds given. None of us would be content to see an old servant starve on the basis of the kind of argument used in the Debates on this Bill. The second line might have been—and for this there is an unanswerably logical case—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I gather he is now suggesting what might, or in his view ought, to have been in the Bill. That, of course, is not in Order. The hon. Gentleman is only entitled to discuss what is in the Bill as this is its Third Reading.

Mr. Brown: I am attacking what is in the Bill, because it corresponds with no conceivable "principle upon which this problem could and ought to have been faced. However, I will not pursue that line of argument if I am out of Order. I will only say that it seems to me incumbent upon us, when we are dealing either with civil servants or with people who have served us in the past, to bring to bear upon that situation some elementary fundamental principles and then decide upon action in the light of those principles. I attack this Bill be cause it is related to no conceivable principle whatever, except the casting of an inadequate bone, to a badly starving dog. That is not the principle by which we ought to regulate the lives of those who have spent their lives in our service. There is nothing more I can say except to place on record my view. First of all, I express my scorn for people who move Amendments and then run away, rather than face up to the choice between quarrelling with their own Party or standing up for the people whose sacrifices have made it possible for them to come here. I also express my regrets for this House. By now we ought to be informed of the merits of this issue, because we discussed it in 1944 and in 1945, and we had a Second Reading discussion in 1946 and a Committee stage in 1947, so that every one of us ought, by now,

to realise what are the merits of the case. In spite of that, we have adopted this Bill, which I characterise as mean, ungenerous and unworthy of the House, in relation to the treatment of people who have spent their lives in our service.

5.49 P.m.

Mr. Burden: After that attack, made in the usual manner of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown), I feel, as one who has taken some small part in these proceedings during 1944 and 1945, and during the present Debate, that I should say a word or two in defence of the Government and particularly of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. The Bill carries out the promise made when the matter was under discussion in 1945, and while it is true that it does not give us all that we would desire, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rugby—who, before he came to play the distinguished part he does in Debates, took part in many industrial negotiations—knows that, in the nature of things, one does not always get all that one desires. In no negotiations in which he has taken part did he ever come away completely satisfied, I am sure.

Mr. Brown: I agree that half a loaf is better than no bread, but what I was protesting about was the philosophy that possibly the half is as good as the whole.

Mr. Burden: Such a philosophy exists only in the vivid imagination of the hon. Member. On behalf of the people who have been in close contact with the Financial Secretary in prolonged consideration of the matters under debate, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and the consideration which he has given to the points we have submitted to him.
Finally, I want to deal briefly with the quite unfounded assumption which the hon. Member for Rugby tries to put across to this House, that it was the agitation of the civil servants' organisations which was responsible for this Measure. That is not in accordance with the facts. Retired civil servants will benefit, quite rightly, but there are also many others.

Mr. Brown: But not an hon. Member of this House did anything about it until I came back in 1942.

Mr. Burden: It was mainly to deal with that quite unfounded assumption, which


is being made continually by the hon. Member for Rugby, that I rose. I am sure that we thank the Financial Secretary for all he has done, as we look for further consideration later on.

5.52 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made about my small share in the production of this Bill. I have said before that I do not look upon this Bill as a major Measure. It does not attempt to do more than a very modest thing. That is to build on the original Act of 1944, with which I had nothing to do, and to try to increase the percentages which were laid down in that Measure. I think we have gone quite a long way to improve the conditions laid down in 1944. We have increased the percentage for those with the smallest pensions. We have increased the income limit up to which pensions can be increased from £300 to £450—which, in fact, means more than £500, because £52 of other income is disregarded in the case of the married person, and from £225 to £350 for the single person. In the case of the civil servant, it goes up to £787 10s. I am not complaining, but stating a fact. The local authority ratepayer and national authority taxpayer, has to bear this burden, modest though it is. As taxpayers and ratepayers they are suffering from the increased cost of living, and the difficulties that fall on all of us, but I think we can say that, modest though it is, it is something towards helping the poorer pensioners of the State, and of local authorities.
We took into our confidence all the organisations concerned, and consulted them at every stage. We had to consult the Trades Union Congress, speaking as it does for workers generally. They gave us good advice, which, I am glad to say, we took. It was not our fault that the Civil Service Clerical Association, and other Civil Service organisations, were not then represented on the Trade Union Congress. That was no reason why we should have ignored the T.U.C We went to the T.U.C, and also to the Civil Service organisations which were then outside the T.U.C, and consulted them through their staff organisations, principally through the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. What I say about their agreeing to the 40 per cent. is perfectly true. If the hon. Member for Rugby

(Mr. W. J. Brown) wants me to repeat it, I will repeat that 40 per cent. was the suggestion made, and we accepted it, and in the end we got all the authorities concerned to come into line and to accept it. In the circumstances, I ask the House with some confidence to give us the Third Reading and let us get the Bill on to the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Superannuation payments for transferred officers.)

6.0 p.m

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, to leave out "by statutory instrument."
We desire this deletion because the Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 has not yet come into operation. It will come into operation at some date later, we hope this year. But at the moment it has not begun to operate. It is our view that a reference, in a Bill, to the Act of 1946 before it is actually in operation, would be an anachronism. We think, therefore, that these words should be deleted from this Clause. It will make no difference in the long run, because, as and when the Act of 1946 is put into operation, it will automatically make any rules made by the National Debt Commissioners under this Clause a statutory instrument. Whether the words are included or not, the effect eventually will be the same, but, as the original Act has not yet been put into operation, we think it is well to delete them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Advances by trustee savings banks for development.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Osbert Peake: I indicated on the Second Reading of this Bill, that while we had no objections to raise or questions to ask on the first five Clauses, which dealt entirely with the internal machinery and internal arrangements of trustee savings banks, we should like a little more explanation in regard to the power given to trustees of a trustee savings bank under Clause 6. The Clause provides that the trustees of a trustee savings bank may make advances
to any persons proposing to form a new trustee savings bank for the purpose of providing for expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with the formation and the initial working of the new bank.
The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary told us, on Second Reading, of the large number of trustee savings banks which at present exist, and the enormous number, of branches which these existing banks maintain. Therefore, it seems to me to require a little explanation why a new power is being taken to enable the trustees of a trustee savings bank to make advances in order to enable a new bank to be established. One would have thought that any possible need for such an institution could have been met by the provision of a branch of one of the existing banks. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give us a short explanation of the inclusion of this new power under Clause 6.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I remember clearly that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) raised this question when we were dealing with this Bill on Second Reading, and mat he then indicated that he might raise it again when we reached the next stage of this Bill. The short answer is that savings banks now have power to open new branches—they can do so under the powers already vested in them—but it is felt that, often, the opening of a new branch, particularly when an area is some little distance from the parent office, is hardly the way to deal with the matter, because these savings banks, as indeed is the case with other banks, gain a great deal from local associations. It is felt that, rather than open a branch of an existing savings bank in another town, it would be much better to open a new bank, which would be associated both in name and fact with the locality in which it opened. At the moment it is not possible for one savings bank to lend money for the opening up

of another office unless it is definitely part of that same organisation. The amount of money now available for opening new banks is at the moment very small—I think the National Debt Commissioners have about £90,000 in hand—whereas some savings banks have surpluses which they could well lend to assist a new bank opening in another town. Where that is desirable this provision would enable that to be done.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]

Considered m Committee

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Removal of restrictions on amount of special Greenwich Hospital pensions and of expenditure on education and maintenance of children.)

6.7 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a,)and to insert:.
(a) The maximum limit of special Greenwich Hospital pensions under Section five of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1869, shall be one hundred and lour pounds a year instead of thiny-six pounds ten shillings a year and twenty-seven pounds ten shillings a year in the respective cases referred to in that Section
The object of this Amendment is TO continue a tradition of a century of government of Greenwich Hospital under which successive Parliaments have felt it their duty always to insert in Bills dealing with the matter a limit to pensions that should be paid from time to time, according to the amount of money that might be available for this purpose. The basic Act is that of 1869 under which pensions were set up—10s. 6d. for those who entered the hospital after the passing of the Act, and 15s. to those who had entered the hospital before that. This was subsequently amended in 1898 to 17s. 6d., so that at no time have powers been given to the Admiralty or the Government to


pay pensions except on a scale authorised by this Parliament. The figure of £2 which has been put in this Amendment has been decided by a statement of the Financial Secretary during the Second Reading of the Bill. He said he hoped that the upper limit would be in the neighbourhood of 35s. The fixing of the limit at £2 in this Amendment is deliberately done so as to give a certain amount of latitude to the Admiralty, and to provide for any contingency.
The main reason we feel that this Amendment should be accepted by the Committee is that the capital fund of the Greenwich Hospital, from which all these payments are made, is now in the neighbourhood of £7million, and as far as I can make out, that sum is practically entirely the result of the donations, legacies, etc., of private people for this admirable purpose. We feel that this Committee should preserve what it has always done in the past—control of these funds given by private individuals for this good public purpose. The Government only provide a sum of £4,000 a year towards all the pensions and other good works of the fund, whereas the total expenditure is in the neighbourhood of £200,000 per annum. We feel that with these figures involved it is essential for the House of Commons to retain the power to check any Government, and see that they use this relatively vast sum of money in accordance with the wishes of those who for two centuries have contributed to this public purpose.

Major Bruce: I am afraid that I cannot possibly support this Amendment. It seems to me to impose a limitation which in all the circumstances I regard as undesirable, and which, indeed, the Minister himself has regarded as undesirable. The Amendment seeks to have individual allowances given in cases of this kind limited to £104 a year. The last time this Section of the original Act of 1869 was amended was in 1898, and the maximum ceiling fixed at that time was £45 10s. per annum.
When I looked at this figure I remembered what might be called the political extravaganza we had the other night from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who assured us that the existing cost-of-living index was a "phoney" one and, in fact, it possibly had risen considerably. I suggest that

if the Opposition were going to put down an Amendment of this kind, they might have gone to a slightly higher level than they have seen fit to go in this Amendment. In the circumstances, I think it best to leave it as it stands. I would like to request the Parliamentary Secretary to review very carefully the sums involved which are paid to these pensioners. At present I am informed that there are approximately 179 pensions in issue to officers and 750 in issue to seamen and marines. I observe from the estimates for the coming year that it is intended to spend £7,810 during 1947, which works out at an average of about £43 per officer, if, indeed, it is proper to average it in that fashion. On the other hand, the seamen and marines are scheduled to receive £23,000, which works out at an average amount of £21 per head.
There are some cases where people, through no fault of their own, are not able to receive public benefit in a particular form, and where the pensions might well exceed the sums payable under this Bill. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, within the limitations which are imposed by the amount of money available, he should administer the matter rather more generously than may have been possible in the past. I do not like very much the principle of limiting expenditure under this head purely because the money has been derived, to a very large extent, from a private source. In essence, of course, the fund is a private fund which, as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has pointed out, has been subsidised, originally by the Board of Trade but now by the Treasury, to the extent of £4,000 per annum. Obviously that, accumulating over a period of time, has reflected itself in the capital sum now available. The position of the Admiralty in relation to these pensions, surely, is that they manage them. The State has thought it advisable that the Admiralty should manage this particular type of pension which is raised by a voluntary fund. I do not think that the size of the capital sum available has any bearing upon any restriction which it is desired to impose on the Admiralty in this respect. It is necessary to remember that these pensions are something over and above the -normal pensions which serving people get in the ordinary way, by reason either of their service in the Forces


or of disability caused by service. The Admiralty should be given the widest flexibility in administering them without necessarily being tied to any limit. The Committee ought to reject this Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am interested in what seems to me to be a change of front on the part of the Opposition. I understood they were perfectly happy about the original Bill, but evidently the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has occupied the Recess to some purpose and has discovered a number of important points which he has raised. To take the first one, the main object, at any rate of this part of the Bill, was to remove any limit. The amount fixed in 1869, and the amount fixed when it was altered later, was in fact a perfectly proper amount at that time. I am not saying that the amount suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest is not a perfectly proper amount now, but it may well be that in future years this amount may seem as improper as the amount suggested at an earlier date seems improper now. Therefore, we do not want to tie ourselves to any definite sum. I would like to emphasise that there is very full control over the administration of this fund.
First, there is Ministerial control. That may not mean very much perhaps to hon. Members opposite, but I would add that there is also Parliamentary control in so far as the sums which we propose to give, the limits that we propose, will be brought in as Orders in Council and paced on the Table of the House. Hon. Members will be able to see, from time to time, what in fact we are proposing to do and to question our action. Further than that, the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department exercise very strict control over the pensions, over the details as well as the principle. Finally, I would refer to the point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman about these being private funds. That is a very important point. However, I would like to remind him that the control exercised over this fund is considerably greater than the control exercised over large numbers of other private funds. For

example, I need take only the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust. The control which I have described and which will be exercised over the administration of the Greenwich Hospital Fund, will be considerably greater than that exercised over this and many other private funds. I think hon. Members can rest satisfied that the control will be adequate and that Parliament will have an opportunity, whenever it wants, of questioning our expenditure and seeing that, in fact, we are administering this fund properly. With that assurance, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there has been no change of front on this side of the House since the Second Reading of this Bill, however energetic the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) may have been during the Recess. We made it perfectly clear during the Second Reading of the Bill that we are entirely with His Majesty's Government and the Admiralty in their desire to remove the maximum figure as laid down by the old Act. We agreed with them that it was not nearly high enough but we warned them then that we were against them, as the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest said in his speech, in not including in this Bill a new and higher maximum figure. We want to be certain that this maximum higher figure is enshrined in this Bill, as it has been in the Acts of the past, and, quite frankly, not left to a decision of the Admiralty to come before the House of Commons as an Order in Council. I realise that it can come before the House in that way and I realise also that we can question it, as the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. But what we cannot do: and what we may wish to do, is to amend that figure. That is the important point which was brought out at the Second Reading and it is a position from which we have not moved.
As the Parliamentary Secretary says, in years to come this maximum figure of £2, which is a higher figure than the one he said on the Second Reading the Admiralty contemplated, may seem inadequate. If this figure in future proves not to be enough, surely the Admiralty can come down to this House,


just as their predecessors have come in past years, and move an Amendment that the figure be changed once more. That brings me to a very serious point, which I have touched on already. As I said in my speech on the Second Reading, this is yet another attempt to remove the power from the people, as represented by Members of Parliament in this Chamber, and to put the power into the hands of the Executive. Therefore, although the Parliamentary Secretary has asked us to withdraw the Amendment, I can assure him that we feel so strongly on the specific point that the maximum figure of pension should be stated in this Bill, and on the more general point of this withdrawal of power from Parliament to the Executive, that we now propose to divide the Committee.

Mr. Charles Williams: I wish to say only a word or two in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has said. At far as I can understand from this Bill—and I have given it much consideration—in spite of what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), these pensions are largely limited in their income, because it arises from capital and this Government grant.

Major Bruce: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misrepresent me. I did not suggest that the Government should pay these sums out of capital. I meant that

they should pay the pensions out of the income arising from it.

Mr. Williams: In the sentence which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used, I think he will find that he referred to the capital sum and said it does not limit these pensions, but I think that the capital sum itself must have a limiting effect upon the pensions, unless we are going to alter it comparatively quickly. There is something in that point, as he will see if he will look into it. I would like to congratulate the Financial Secretary upon the speech he has just made. Really,-he has learnt his part awfully well, and the Deputy-Leader of the House will no doubt notice how well he had prepared his case. It is just like saying that they will not make a decision now but will lay an Order on the Table in due course, when those Members of Parliament who have nothing to do but hunt through all these Orders may, if they find something wrong, possibly very late at night, be able to raise the matter. This is one more instance of the gross incompetence of a Government who cannot make up their mind about a small figure of this sort. I would suggest that, as the hon. Gentleman had learned his part so well, he might have spent a little more time in facilitating a decision upon this figure.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 108.

Division No. 57.
AYES.
[6.23 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Deer, G.


Alpass, J. H.
Buchanan, G.
Diamond, J


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Burden, T. W.
Dobbie, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Burke, W. A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Austin, H. Lewis
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dye, S.


Awbery, S. S.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Champion, A. J.
Edelman, M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Chater, D.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Balfour, A.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Barstow, P. G.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Barton, C.
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Battley, J. R.
Cocks, F. S
Ewart, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Coldrick, W.
Fairhurst, F.


Benson, G.
Collindridge, F.
Farthing, W. J.


Beswick, F.
Collins, V. J.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Foot, M. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Forman, J. C.


Binns, J.
Cook, T. F.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Blackburn, A. R.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Blyton, W. R.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Daggar, G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Daines, P.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Grenfell, D. R.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grierson, E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)




Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Guntr, R. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Guy, W. H,
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Marquand, H. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, W. G.
Mathers, G
Skeffington, A. M.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Medland, H. M
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Hardy E. A.
Messer, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Stamford, W


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Hicks, G.
Montague, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Stross, Dr. B.


Holman, P.
Morley, R.
Stubbs, A. E.


House, G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hoy, J.
Mort, D. L
Swingler, S.


Hubbard, T.
Moyle, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nally, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Hughes, Heotor (Aberdeen, N.)
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Neal, H. (Clayoross)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Irving, W. J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Janner, B.
O'Brien, T.
Thurtle, E


Jay, D. P. T.
Oldfield, W. H.
Tiffany, S.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paget, R. T.
Titterington, M. F.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Telley, L.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Pargiter, G. A.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Kenyon, C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Usborne, Henry


Key, C. W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Pearson, A.
Viant, S. P.


Kinley, J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Walker, G. H.


Kirby, B. V
Piratin, P.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lang, G.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lavers, S
Popplewell, E.
Warbey, W. N.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Watson. W. M.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Lovy, B. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
West, D. G.


Lewis, J (Bolton)
Randall, H, E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ranger, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wilkes, L.


Longden, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lyne, A. W.
Robens, A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


McAdam, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


MoEntee, V,. La T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


MoGhee, H. G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Willis, E.


Mack, J. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wyatt, W.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Royle, C.
Yates, V. F.


McKinlay, A. S.
Sargood, R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Scollan, T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


McLeavy, F.
Scott-Elliot, W.



Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr E. A. A
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sharp, Granville
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maitland, Comdr J. W


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Gammans, L. D.
Marsder, Capt. A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bennett, Sir P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maude, J. C.


Birch, Nigel
Grant, Lady
Mellor, Sir J.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gridley, Sir A.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bower, N.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haughton, S. G.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nutting, Anthony


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hurd, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Osborne, C


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joynson-Hioks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Digby, S. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Raikes, H. V.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rayner, Brig. R


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Renton, D.


Drayson, G B.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ropner, Col. L.







Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Studholme, H. G.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Scott, Lord W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Teeling, William
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Snadden, W. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Turton, R. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vane, W. M. F.



Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Walker-Smith, D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Major Conant and




Major Ramsay.


Question put, and agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out Subsection (2).
The reason why we are moving this Amendment is because, as we understand the drafting of this Subsection, for the first time in all legislation affecting Greenwich Hospital pensions, it is proposed to make pensions payable to "other ranks" dependent on what they are receiving from other sources. I would like to refer to what the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) said during the Second Reading Debate when he quoted from the Fourth Report of the Committee on Public Accounts. He told the House that these pensions were intended, from the time that the first Acts were passed, to be entirely independent of what a man might receive from other sources; that they would be something extra and something that was not to be taken into consideration, no matter what the State, from time to time, might grant to either this or that class of persons by way of pensions.
I think I am right in saying that this is the first time in something like 230 years during which the Greenwich Hospital has been in existence, that this House has been asked to limit its pensions in this manner. Although the Financial Secretary was unable to agree to the first Amendment, I hope that he will be able to accept this one because, in so doing, he would be preserving the spirit in which the Hospital was founded, in which it has been run and, I hope, will continue to be run. I would ask him to bear in mind that the amounts payable for pensions have been reduced from £70,000 to £30,000 in the last accounts. I know that the Financial Secretary said that this was due to the fact that £40,000 had been taken over by other Departments, but, surely, if that is so, it is all the more reason why these pensions should depend on something else. I can see a slight smile on the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary's face,

and I hope I am correct in thinking that he will accept this Amendment.

Major Bruce: I am disposed to support this Amendment on the face of it. However, before I make up my mind about it, I should like an explanation from the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary. As far as I can see, the Subsection is completely contrary to the procedure which has obtained in the past. The 1920 and 1944 Pensions (Increase) Acts make it quite clear that any increases granted under either of those Acts shall not be taken into account in determining the eligibility or the amount. I think that each of those two points "eligibility" and "amount" are rather important.
I am not quite sure how far the circum-stances have changed since the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1944 to warrant the insertion of a Clause of this kind in the Bill. It seems to me that what the Admiralty are presuming in this case is something which has not yet happened They are presuming that the Treasury are in complete control of all these funds, and, therefore, they wish to consolidate all pensions, including the Greenwich Hospital pension, under the uniform rules which they are progressively endeavouring—and quite rightly—to bring into operation in order that pensions may be more standardised than in the past. But this is not so yet. It was envisaged in the Fourth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, where it says, on page xiii:
Your Committee note that the cost of Army and Air Force Age Pensions is already borne wholly by voted monies, and they raise no objection to the Navy Pensions being similarly borne in future.
I believe it has been suggested that 1950 should be the date when all pensions, including the Greenwich Hospital pensions, might conveniently be consolidated into one uniform pensions system. I do not propose to pass any comment on that here; it will arise whenever the particular point comes up for discussion. But the important matter to bear in mind is that that position has not yet been reached, and,


therefore, these are still technically private funds, although, for good reasons, it was long ago decided that the Admiralty are the best qualified persons to administer them. Neither do we know at this stage what is going to be the effect of this particular Subsection. I am not in possession of any figures, but I should imagine that the bulk of people drawing naval pensions at this time had their increases under the 1920 and 1944 Acts and that, by and large, the bulk of pensioners fall into the category affected by this Subsection.
I do not think that it is altogether good practice to endeavour to bring a larger number of people into conformity with that comparatively small number who, of course, have had their pensions consolidated under the new Pay Code issued earlier last year. Although that may well arise in the future, when the whole question of pension consolidation under the Government, including the Greenwich Hospital pension, comes to be considered, I do not think that it should be considered now. As I understand the matter at present, I feel that I must support the Opposition Amendment in this instance, but I shall be very pleased to receive an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) is, I regret to say, in error. I am not at all surprised that he should be because it is an exceedingly complicated Clause. However, I think that if I explain the position he will see that we want to do exactly what he wishes to do.
This Amendment is quite unnecessary. It is only necessary to have a legal right to disregard if there is, in fact, a legal limit. As a result of debating the last Amendment, we have abolished the legal limit. As there is no legal limit, there is no necessity to have a legal right to disregard. Therefore, there is no necessity for the Amendment. But I would like to make it quite plain that although there is no legal right to disregard, we do intend to disregard the naval pensions in this connection. We intend, therefore, to do just what the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants, but there is no need to insert this legally. If we did, in fact, insert it legally, I am advised that it would

make nonsense of the Bill. It is a curious legal point.

Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre: Most curious.

Mr. Dugdale: But it is, in fact, so. The net result if this Amendment is withdrawn is that we shall, in fact, disregard the pensions, as I think both sides of the Committee are anxious we should do. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Williams: May I comment on what I think has been a most interesting and remarkable speech? I understand that there is no legal right to disregard, but the Government intend to break the law.

Mr. Dugdale: Mr. Dugdale indicated dissent.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say anything, I will give way.

Mr. Dugdale: We do not intend to break the law. All I have said is that under the law as it will be passed, if it is passed today, we shall be able to disregard these pensions and we shall not be breaking the law by so doing.

Mr. Williams: That is a great advance on what was said just now. The hon. Gentleman used the expression "no legal right" once or twice, and that is why I wanted to get the hon. Member to go a little further. He has now changed his mind. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that his words were quite clear. Anyway, the point now remains, as far as I understand it, that if this Amendment is accepted and these words are deleted, the position will not be quite as satisfactory. There does seem on both sides of the Committee some doubt as to where we stand. We have had no really authoritative legal advice on the matter, and it has been admitted by the representative of the Government that this is a most complicated legal point. That being so, I do not intend to press for the Amendment to be put to a Division, and I shall not deal with it in other than a perfectly fair way. There is a doubt. There are two opinions as to whether this Amendment is good or not. However, there is the Report stage to come, and I think the Government might fairly say that they will consider the matter from the legal point of view once again, in case my hon. Friend is right. After all, he has been supported by the hon. and gallant


Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) in a speech which was much more able than those which we get from the Front Bench opposite. That being so, I think the Government might say that they will look into the matter from a legal point of view so that it will be absolutely certain that on the Report stage, or on Third Reading, we can have some statement from the Government after they have consulted their lawyers. If they would do that, we would be much happier. One or two of us are rather unhappy on the point whether we ought to divide, and I for one would like the position to be made clear.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: This is certainly a matter which is rather obscure. It is evident that certain Statutes provide for disregarding certain increases of pensions, and we have heard from the Government Front Bench that those provisions will not now be necessary. If the Amendment were carried, it would have the effect of striking out Subsection (2), and there appears to be no object in directly repealing the Sections referred to in Subsection (2). If it is intended to continue the practice which already prevails, why repeal those Sections and then do the work administratively?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have heard hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite explaining away their double negatives, but I have never heard a treble negative before, and if we start with a positive I do not know where we shall finish. Would the Financial Secretary give an undertaking that when he comes to draft regulations and implement this Bill, he will make it abundantly clear, without any use of double or treble negatives, what the policy of the Admiralty is in this matter?

Mr. Dugdale: I will make it abundantly clear.

Mr. C. Williams: Would the hon. Gentleman arrange for these matters to be carried out in such a way that Parliament may know what is being done? It is a matter which many of us feel would be adequately covered if we could put a question—

Major Cecil Poole: There is nothing to stop the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Williams: Surely, there is no harm in asking a question of that sort.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave,.withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major Bruce: There is one question I would like to ask. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Subsection (1) are not quite as clear as many of us would wish. It will be observed in paragraph (c) that under the Act of 1872, the limitation on the amount which was payable formerly to the daughter of any officer is, in fact, withdrawn, but at the same time the limitation on the number remains. When we come to consider the restriction imposed by the Act of 1872 on the number of daughters of warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and men in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, we find that the limit on the number is removed but not the limit on the amount. Under the Estimates for the current year there is going to be paid in aggregate to the daughters of warrant officers, N.C.Os. or men, £6,100. I understand that at the moment there are about 249 of them affected, so that it works out at about £24 a head: So far as the daughters of officers are concerned, I understand that the Estimates for this year are about £1,500. There 'are about 30 officers' daughters affected which works out at an average of about £50 a head. There seems to be a disparity between the amounts which are paid in these various cases. I commend to my hon. Friend the democracy of the Act of 1872, because that Act provides in Sections 4 and 5 that in each case, whether the person is the daughter of a warrant officer or a rating, or of a commissioned officer, the limit is the same. It is actually £20 in each case. I am a little curious to know why the limitation on the amount has been removed from the daughters of officers, and has been left at £20 in respect of the daughters of other ranks, and why the number in the case of the daughters of other ranks has been removed from restriction, while the restriction on the number in the case of officers remains. I would like to have some explanation.

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir Under this Bill there will be no limit, either as to the amount or the number in either case, in


the case of the daughters of officers or in the case of the daughters of ratings. Our object is to remove limitations in this case as we have in other cases. There will be no limit.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the hon. Gentleman state under what conditions in this Bill the restrictions to which the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) referred are withdrawn?

Mr. C. Williams: Could the hon. Gentleman not chance giving an answer to that? After all, he has not been terribly accurate this afternoon. The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) has made this point, and has taken very great care in looking it up, in regard to restrictions on the number of daughters. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary wants to give the right information to the House. He says that this limitation does not arise. Will he answer the question which has just been put to him, as to exactly where this limitation is removed? We welcome the fact that he has given an answer that it is removable, but I do feel it would not be quite fair either to himself, the Committee or the hon. and gallant Member who has taken the trouble to raise this point, not to be quite certain about this matter before we allow it to pass on. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give the information asked for.

Mr. Dugdale: I have said the limitation was removed. The only other thing I wish to say, which I think will interest the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who is always out of date with his facts, is that it was removed 20 years ago.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. —(Special Greenwich Hospital pension not to be used for repayment of poor relief.)

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, or of the Poor Law Act, 1930, or of any Orders or Regulations made thereunder, a special Greenwich Hospital pension shall be paid to the person entitled thereto for his personal use and shall not be used for the purpose of the repayment of any relief given to the said person by way of loan under the Poor Law Act, 1930.—[Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this proposed new Clause is one of incurable optimism, in the hope that one day we will be able to get right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite to put something into a Bill, instead of promising to introduce legislation and merely implementing the streamlined legislation they are passing. We feel rather strongly on this matter, because the Greenwich Hospital pensions are designed primarily to help people who, through bad luck, and through no fault of their own—perhaps through accident or disease—do not qualify for the maximum naval pensions in the normal way. Right from the time of William and Mary this fund was intended to provide something else, to help these people if they fell by the wayside during their naval careers. We are moving this proposed new Clause so as to ensure that no one shall be debarred from receiving a Greenwich Hospital pension because he happens to be in a public institution.
At the moment, no one who is in a public institution can receive a Greenwich Hospital pension. The Financial Secretary has promised that in his regulations he will introduce a statement to the effect that, where local authorities promise not to "pinch" the Greenwich Hospital pension to offset their own charges, it will be payable by the Admiralty. We do not think that should be left to local authorities. We have the greatest respect for the Home Secretary, and his assistants, but, of course, he cannot look after every local authority. Therefore, we feel that these pensions should not be subject to such a condition, of a progressive or well-minded local authority as against one whose chief ambition is to seize every pension it can. If this proposed new Clause is accepted it will put beyond question the fact that any Greenwich Hospital pension will be payable to all classes of naval personnel, irrespective of where they may happen to be at the time of their application. If through bad luck, ill-health, or any other reason, they have unfortunately had to go into a public institution this pension will be available automatically.

Mr. Dugdale: At the risk of being "barracked" by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) I intend to


keep very closely indeed to my notes here, because this is a point which does not primarily concern the Admiralty, but the Ministry of Health. This Amendment means, in effect, that the public assistance authority would have to disregard a Greenwich Hospital special pension in considering a person's resources for the purpose of the Poor Law Act. Relief under that Act is not, however, the only social service where the resources of the applicant have to be taken into account. There are, for example, the services which are administered by the Assistance Board, and the introduction of a new statutory disregard could not be considered solely in relation to the Poor Law. Quite apart from this consideration, however, the position which the Amendment seeks to remedy will be entirely changed in a matter of 15 months' time, if Parliament approves the National Assistance proposals which the Government will bring before the Committee as soon as Parliamentary time permits. From early next year Greenwich Hospital pensioners who require assistance will fall to be dealt with in common with the rest of the community, under a system of national rather than local assistance. Where they require treatment in hospital they will receive it under the National Health Service, and there will be no question of their being required to pay over any part of their pension or other income. The treatment will be provided free of charge. That is one of the benefits which are being introduced as a result of the Government's determination to improve our social services. As I say, this particular Amendment is one which concerns my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who has come here specially to be present at this discussion. It concerns him and his Department more than it does mine, and I am advised by his Department that this Amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I understand the difficulties of the Parliamentary Secretary. I realise that it may involve other Departments. However, he has not only given us nothing now, but has asked us to wait for possible legislation in 15 months' time. I do not think he has any right to ask the House to accept his assurance for a period so far ahead. I recall the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading Debate, in

which he gave a very definite undertaking. He said:
I undertake that I will produce amending regulations by which, if a local authority will guarantee that the money goes to the man himself who is in hospital, and is not' taken away by them by way of relief of rates the pension will be given to the man in the hospital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, nth December, 1946; Vol. 431 c. 1295.]
I urge that when the time comes the Admiralty will impress upon local authorities that, as has been said in regard to previous Amendments, these are very special funds indeed. They were given for naval pensioners only It is very clear, through all the Acts ever since the pensions were first introduced, that the object was that these pensions were not to be reduced because of aid received from other sources. I shall not urge my hon. Friends to press this Amendment to a Division, but I hope very much that when the time comes the Parliamentary Secretary will make the feelings of both sides of the Committee absolutely clear to his colleagues in regard to the very special conditions of these pensions.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I do not want to "barrack" anyone, but I must say that the speech of the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary was unsatisfactory. We have been told that these people, who have served the country so well, must wait for 15 months. Surely, that was the point that he made? [Interruption,]If it is not, he must contradict me on the point. He said that we should have to wait that time until some further form of social legislation goes through. I hope that some hon. Gentlemen can interrupt me and contradict me now. No? Then I am right in saying that that was what was said just now. I shall be surprised if any contradiction was made. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Gentleman wishes to contradict me, I am willing to sit down and let him do so, because I am not above learning something new.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Did the hon. Gentleman finish his speech or not?

Mr. Williams: This is the Committee stage, Mr. Bowles. I said that I would give way, and so I sat down; but there is no intention, apparently, on the part of any hon. Members opposite to rise to


contradict me, and, therefore, I hope I am correct in what I have said. The position is that these unfortunate people are to have delayed over 15 months some benefit which they may wish to take, and to which they are entitled under this Bill. When that time comes it will (be given to them, but, in the meantime, they have to wait. Heaven only knows, as the hon. Gentleman said, when Parliamentary time can be found. I know as well as anyone else that Parliamentary time is in a muddle. I should very much rather, if I were one of these pensioners, have this thing in the Bill now, than have to wait, especially with the dangers there axe of a financial crisis. Let us give it to them and make a job of it now. I hope that my hon. Friends will stick to this new Clause, and that we shall have a Division, to make it clear that we wish this benefit to be given.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Before we come to a decision I must thank the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary for sticking so closely to his brief. I ask him to tell us why it is impossible for this to happen. I agree that many services have been provided, and were provided in 1869; but that does not seem to me to have anything to do with the case. We, on this side, say that this is a particularly deserving class of people, and there are private funds deliberately devoted to this purpose; and the people in this class we wish to help are those who have fallen upon ill luck and have had to go to public institutions. Surely, as my hon. Friends have said, it is not an answer for the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to say that, because we have given this, that and the other, and other Governments have done this, that and the other, we have to wait for an unknown period. I do not believe that he can think that in 15 months this will happen. He may by that time have followed the course of many Ministers opposite, and have gone to another place, or gone as Governor to a Colony. It is unreasonable for him to ask us to accept that assurance. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, from his Department's point of view, why this cannot be accepted?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and, there being no Tellers for the Ayes, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

PURCHASE TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

7.10 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 6) Order. 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 2077) dated 10th December, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December be approved.
By this Order the Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. on certain classes of passenger carrying road vehicles is removed—from caravans of all sorts, whether they are motor driven, horse driven, or merely trailers. There has been from time to time a certain amount of pressure from Members of Parliament in regard to this matter, because owing to the shortage of houses caravans have been used in various parts of the country for people to live in. It has now been agreed, and this Order puts the matter into effect, that the present Purchase Tax should come off those vehicles. I would like to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has agreed to remit any tax that might be outstanding, provided that the benefit is passed on to the customer who happened to buy a caravan. I would like as much publicity as possible to be given to that statement in order that those who should benefit, in fact will benefit.

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 7) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 2078), dated 10th December, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 12th December, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

STATISTICS OF TRADE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 21st January.]

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable certain government departments to obtain more readily the information necessary for the appreciation of economic trends and for the discharge of their functions, to consolidate and amend the law relating to the census of production, to provide for a census of distribution and other services, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade or other competent authority (as denned in the said Act).

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Worksop, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st January, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st January, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Bolton, a copy of which Order was presented on 21st January, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

ELECTRICITY AND GAS (CONSUMPTION) ORDER

7.15 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That the Electricity and Gas (Reduction of Consumption) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 2087), dated 10th December, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 12th December, be annulled
This Order purports to reduce the consumption of electricity and gas, and

it is my purpose this evening to argue that, owing to the form in which it has been made, it will very largely defeat its own object. It applies to industrial undertakings which consume more than a specified amount of coal, electricity or gas. The industrial undertakings which are excluded are iron works, steel works, foundries, coke ovens, docks, harbours, canals and collieries, but all other industrial undertakings are covered by this Order provided they consume more than a specific quantity of one of these three forms of fuel. Also included within the scope of the Order are certain controlled premises which are defined in the Order as:
Any hotel, club, restaurant or place of entertainment or sport.
The Order provides for dispensation from the provisions of the Order to a greater or less extent by means of licences, and I will deal with that aspect of the matter later on, but the main effect of the Order is this: It provides that during the first three months of this year all those concerns covered by the Order must restrict their rate of consumption of electricity or gas to an amount not exceeding the rate of consumption during the basic period. The basic period varies apparently from one concern to another but it is, roughly speaking, towards the end of last year; it is defined as the last meter reading period before 21st December, 1946. If hon. Members will bear in mind that the permitted consumption of an undertaking during the first three months of this year will be determined by how much was consumed during a basic period at the end of last year, it will be quite evident that the Order will have this outstanding effect: it will penalise those undertakings which were most economical in the basic period and will be comparatively indulgent to those undertakings which were most wasteful during that basic period. I say it will be obvious for this reason. Those undertakings which, during the basic period, cut their consumption of electricity and gas to the bone, will now be in the unhappy position that they can only make a further cut at the expense of their production, whereas those undertakings which were relatively extravagant during the basic period will, of course, have some margin left which they can reduce without reducing their production.
The result is that those undertakings which, during the basic period, really


did their best to save consumption, will be placed at a great disadvantage in their competition with rival concerns which chose to be extravagant. It seems a very shabby affair that the Minister should so treat those who loyally responded to his appeals for economy last year. I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power a Question on 19th December in relation to this Order, having regard to the considerations I have mentioned. I asked him:
It he will give an assurance that undertakings which reduce consumption below the maximum permitted will not thereby be prejudiced in subsequent restriction.
Obviously, many of them must feel that if they do not use their full allowance, they may well suffer for it later on. The Minister did not give an assurance. His answer was:
It is my intention throughout to accord the most favourable treatment possible to firms which practise fuel efficiency."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 2156.]
That is no assurance whatsoever; indeed, those who see how the wasteful have scored may well feel disinclined to be economical in future. It is quite possible that some concerns anticipated the Order, because the Minister outlined the provisions of the Order in a circular letter, dated 4th December, which went out to all industries concerned. The Order was published on 12th December. As I have already mentioned, the basic period is the last meter reading period before 21st December, and so there was certainly a temptation even then for concerns to step up their consumption so as to put themselves in a happier position during the first three months of this year.
In any case, this Order must work very unjustly between one concern and another, because I must remind the House that the basic period is the period when the electricity or gas undertakers happened last to read the meter before 21st December, 1946, and it is a matter of chance whether that meter reading happened to include a cold spell or a mild spell. The whole basis of consumption for the first three months of this year is to be determined by that, and I understand that in some cases meters were last read in September, and these concerns will obviously be in a very poor position in the colder weather which we are now having.
I should like to refer in a little more detail to the Minister's circular letter of 4th December, which I have already mentioned. In' that circular letter he referred to the dispensation Which might be obtained by way of licence. He referred to it in these terms:
Applications for such ad hoc assistance should be addressed to the regional controller of the production department concerned.…Where it appears that a case for special assistance has been established, the application will be referred by the regional controller to the regional fuel allocation committee, to whom authority has been granted to distribute the regional share of the pool created from savings secured by the 2½ per cent cut.
I want to ask how long that process is likely to take, because it seems that before a concern can know whether it is to be allowed to consume any more than the 97½ per cent., it has to furnish the evidence to the regional controller of the production department concerned, who then has to refer it to the regional fuel allocation committee, and that is going to be quite a lengthy process; the best part of this three months may well have elapsed before a reply is obtained.
Is it the policy of the Government that the regional controller of the production department concerned shall treat each application on its merits, or are these regional controllers perhaps to rule out a whole industry from licences? That is very important. It seems to me that this business about the granting of licences must take an appreciable time—and the period we are concerned with is relatively short, being only three months—is really very much of a sham and a delusion, and I do not think much satisfaction is going to be obtained that way.
There is one point to which I wish to draw attention in connection with the explanatory note. It seems to me that the explanatory note is both inaccurate and misleading. I think that it might be read in many different ways, and when I first read it, it certainly gave me the impression that there was to be a progressive cut of 2½ per cent. in each of the first three months of this year. I would suggest, as I have already suggested to the Minister, that if the words" by 2½ per cent.", which appear in the last line but three, were deleted, and the words to 97½ per cent. were inserted, the explanatory note would no longer be inaccurate, and would be far easier to understand. I do not wish to develop


the point further on the explanatory note, because I feel that this is one of those Orders where there is a very strong case for annulment on the merits.
I claim that the effect of this Order will not only be to reduce production, but may well, for the reasons I have given, ultimately have the effect of increasing consumption. I am sorry that the Minister is not here. I have the greatest respect for the Parliamentary Secretary and for his ability, but he cannot come here armed with authority, and therefore I feel it is regrettable that we have not the assistance of the Minister, because an Order of this type ought not to be treated as a side show. The Government have chosen by this Order to deal with a far-reaching and vitally important problem, and it should not be treated as a side show. The Minister should be here himself to give the answer of the Department. I repeat that this Order is going to have most lamentable consequences, because by penalising those who have been thrifty, it will discourage economy in future. I think that the Ministry should do their utmost to reward those who have been economical, and this will have the very opposite effect.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to second the Motion.
The fact that a restrictive Order of this nature is introduced in the second winter of peace is of itself something of a commentary upon the administration of the Minister of Fuel and Power. But for the purposes of this Debate it would seem proper to assume that a cut in the consumption of fuel is the price which the country must pay for 18 months of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems clear that if the restriction has been necessitated by the right hon. Gentleman's administration it is being imposed in the worst possible way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has pointed out, this penalty, this restriction, falls heavily on those who have responded to appeals for economy, and does not touch the extravagant.
The House will perhaps have appreciated the significance of the dates in the Order. The basic period on which the ration for the next few months is based is a period dependent on the date of the last meter reading, a date which may be

as late as 21st December. This Order was made on 10th December, and was laid on the Table of this House on the 12th December. In the case of those organisations, those firms, whose meter readings were taken on or about 20th December it would be possible for them to evade all the restrictions under this Order by stepping up their consumption during the eight or 10 days between publication of the Order and the end of the basic period. That is sloppy rationing. To permit possibly unscrupulous people to wreck your whole restrictive system is an indication of sheer administrative incompetence.
It is no use the Parliamentary Secretary saying, "We need not bother about that, because all the people conducting the organisation are public spirited." If that were so there would be no need for restriction at all. An emotional appeal by the right hon. Gentleman, in his characteristic vein, would carry all before it, and would result in a substantial cut in consumption. The object of a rationing scheme is to ensure restriction on the unwilling. Any person who, by sheer chance, happens to have his meter read in the middle of December can, toy wanton extravagance in the middle of December, completely defeat the object of this Order I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell the House why his Department have added this blunder to the long series of blunders for which they have been responsible. If further restrictions are to follow for the country I hope they will be imposed in a more intelligent and more watertight manner.
There is another aspect of the matter which was not touched upon by my hon. Friend. The concerns referred to in paragraph 6 of the Order, the controlled premises, hotels, clubs and so on, are institutions which use a good deal of their fuel upon lighting. The basic period may be in September. It might, on the other hand, be in mid-December, during which time it may have become apparent to the Minister that natural daylight is at its shortest. The period to be covered by the restriction goes on to the vernal equinox and, therefore, a restriction on lighting of only 2½per cent. of what is necessary in December indicates wanton extravagance during the long daylight months. It appears that this type of rationing is imposed by a simple ignorance


of the facts of human life which can only be found nowadays within the recesses of the Government's consciousness. Therefore, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider seriously the effect of the argument of my hon. Friend as to the result of this type of Order upon future appeals by his Ministry.
It is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to expend his expansive eloquence upon appeals to the public to economise if those who respond to those appeals are immediately to be penalised by Orders issued by his Ministry. It is playing upon the good faith and willingness to cooperate of industry in general, and abusing that confidence. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that if he resists the annulment of this Order one consequence will follow, whatever else follows, namely, that nobody will pay the slightest attention in future to any appeal for voluntary economy which the Minister cares to make.

7.37 P.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I wish to support, from practical experience, what has been said by my two hon. Friends who moved and seconded this motion and, in particular, the concluding words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). We are concerned in industry, about the future effects of an Order of this description. Those who were in the House during the last Parliament will remember that we had many coal Debates. We had an appeal to do all we could to impose the most rigid restrictions on the use of fuel. That was at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was in office at the Ministry. There was an immediate response, and we did all we could. We insisted in our organisations on rigid economy in fuel. We hoped that it was a temporary expedient, but we continually insisted upon economy. There was no easing up in any way.
But those who listened to subsequent coal Debates and heard the forecasts of difficulties likely to confront the mining industry, realised that what we were being asked to put into operation were not temporary measures. Now we are told, "If it had not been for your insistence we should be a great deal better off now." I know that virtue is its own reward, and

that we can throw our chests out and say that we did it, but to ask one's officials to keep up the pressure for rigid economy, and then be penalised, is not the best way, to get their cooperation in future. I have heard it said—although I do not suppose it will happen—that people will not be very particular in future, because those who were particular are now suffering while those who were not are not being penalised. I would, however, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that it is helpful to people who have made sacrifices to know that they will be better off than those who have not.

7.40 p.m

Mr. Janner: I cannot follow the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen who have asked for the annulment of this Order. Are they suggesting that there is no necessity to restrict the use of fuel at the present time; or are they suggesting that it should be left to the individuals whom they themselves commend to decide whether the restrictions shall be in accordance with their desires to the detriment of the industries which are prepared to assist the country when fuel is scarce? What this Order appears to do is very simple—to make a fair and proper cut for all the industries concerned. I cannot understand how that can be regarded as an unpractical or improper way of dealing with the situation. As to the basic period, it is, of course, extremely difficult, at any time, to fix what shall be a basic period. Any period, whatever it may be, acts to the detriment of some people and to the advantage of other people. Hon. Members on the other side have themselves indicated that. They have said that if the reading of a meter happens to come in September, look how adversely that will affect the situation so far as the reading of a meter in December is concerned. What do they suggest? That intimation should be given by the Minister that all the meters in the country are to be read on a particular day That will not do, they say, because the people who are not as honest and as reasonable as others will immediately step up their consumption.

Sir J. Mellor: I am not suggesting that this should be done on the basis of meter reading. On the contrary, I mentioned the case of differentiation between mild weather and cold weather meter readings as making bad worse.

Mr. Janner: I understand the hon. Gentleman. What he wants to do is to leave it entirely to the discretion of a quite reasonable and patriotic industry to bear the burden disproportionately with the person or industry which happens to be a bad one. He knows, as well as I, that will not do. If one is to work to a planned method, one has to know exactly how much fuel is likely to be consumed, so that one may plan accordingly. The only way to do that is to take some basic period, estimate the amount of fuel that was consumed at that time, and cut throughout on a proper, equitable basis the use of consumption in respect of future periods. That is precisely what this Order does.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman really suggest to the House that it is an equitable basis of comparison to take the consumption of fuel of one undertaking in September and compare it with that of another undertaking in December?

Mr. Janner: It is as equitable as you can get it. [Laughter.] I do not see why hon. Members are amused. When I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), I was asking if he expected every meter to be read at the same time. That is impracticable. It is necessary to take some meter readings in order to be able to arrive at a decision at all, and as nobody knew before the Order was passed when the scarcity period would be, the last reading of the meter is as equitable a system as you can possibly get.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have heard what I said. I read a circular letter from the Minister, which went to all those concerned in this matter, dated 4th December, which foreshadowed the Order which was published on 12th December, and the last date of meter reading was 21st December.

Mr. Janner: I know that. The hon. Gentleman surely does not think that I am speaking without knowing what he said and also appreciating the point made by his hon. Friends. Of course I understand that, but, nevertheless, there must be some period in which the meter readings must have been taken. I should have said that the period between the 10th and 21st would not have been used very extensively for that purpose. I

think that in the circumstances, it being absolutely necessary to restrict the fuel in a proper and equitable manner, this Order provides for it in as good, if not a better way than any other that could be devised.

7.46 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think that the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has perhaps missed the point. He said that this Order rather favoured the good fellow and not the bad fellow. We say that it favours the bad chap at the expense of the good one.

Mr. Janner: What date does the hon. and gallant Member suggest taking as a basic period?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not think that we need a basic date at all. The hon. Gentleman very clearly said which of the two classes, the bad or good in business, this favoured, and we think that it favours precisely the opposite to that which he mentioned. The man who has saved in the past is penalised. There is no question about that. This is a further example of fumbling by this Department. When it is suggested that all is not well in the Ministry of Fuel and Power, it is thought that we are jealous. "Jealous" is a word that has two interpretations. As the Old Testament word, "jealous" means that we are jealous of what is going on in our country, as a result of the action of this Ministry and others, and the appalling results following upon them; or it may mean merely "jealous" because the Minister has done this job and we have not. The trouble is that he has not done the job in a proper way, and this Order is proof of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] It may be rubbish in the hon. Member's opinion. If he will read the Order, he will see that what I and my hon. Friends say is perfectly correct. We ought to make some effort in this country, particularly with regard to fuel in which the people are very interested, to make sure that the fellow who is trying to do his best to carry out the Government's regulations—and goodness knows that is difficult enough—is not the one to be penalised. I would like to support what my hon. Friends on this side have said, because I think this is a fundamental point which must not be lost sight of.

7.49 P.m.

Mr. Drayson: I think that we must presume that this Order will be the first of many more like it to restrict fuel consumption in the country, which will affect a vast number of industries besides the few which are particularly mentioned in this Order. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) began by suggesting that this Order would allow a fair share for all. I think that the country is getting rather tired of this "fair share for all" cry in respect of commodities and goods which are becoming constantly in shorter supply. The hon. Member then appealed to patriotism, but I do not quite know how he worked that in, and he finished his speech by advocating fair cuts for all. I think the Government's new motto is not "A fair share for all," but "Fair cuts for all." There is some doubt, in regard to this Order, whether the cuts are fair, because it has been made abundantly clear from this side of the House that the industries and businesses which have effected economies are those which are to be penalised. It has Been the same all along since the Government came into power. The people who have saved have been those who have suffered. As time goes on, and as our supplies of fuel get less and less and the quality become worse and worse, it will not be easy for the people who are affected by an Order of this sort, which entails a reduction in consumption of per cent If the quality of the coal is bad and it has a higher ash content. those people will be in a very awkward position, and the result may be that they will exceed the 97½ per cent of the quantity which has been fixed in their operations for the four-weeks' periods mentioned in the Order.
This Order is one 'more example of the many unfulfilled pledges of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I wish the Minister of Fuel and Power was in his place tonight. If by any chance the right hon. Gentleman happened to be in China today—and I am sure we all wish very sincerely he was there—I think he would by now probably have earned a name that would sound like "Too Few Fuel "or perhaps "Who Closed Down." This Order is typical of many more that we expect from the Government. In so far as it deals with hotels and, restaurants, it affects the comfort of the people, and

later Orders dealing more specifically with our productive industries will affect us very much more severely. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall vote for the annulment of this Order.

7.55 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I think it would be as well if I reminded the House of the background against which this Order was made. It was made because the Government felt that, in view of the serious fuel situation, it was no longer possible to go on leaving the consumption of electricity completely uncontrolled, and without any kind of restriction. We knew that there would be difficulties this winter in respect of solid fuel for industry, and we felt that it was very right and proper that some restriction should also be placed on consumption by industry, and by the controlled premises, of electricity and gas. I would remind the House, too, that it is the increased consumption of electricity, and to a smaller extent gas, which is largely responsible to the present difficult situation. The production of coal in the calendar year 1946 was 6,500,000 tons above that of 1945, which is very satisfactory, but, unfortunately, consumption was even higher.
Of course, it might be argued that we should be satisfied with voluntary action, that appeals were really all that should be done in the sphere of electricity and gas. We came to the conclusion that that was not so, and in that conclusion we were strongly supported by the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, which took the view that we must impose some statutory restriction.
It is not an easy task to impose a statutory restriction on the consumption of electricity. I think we all recognize that. Indeed, if it were easy, I must frankly say that not merely this Government, but the last Government, would have imposed it long ago. One cannot allocate electricity in the same way as one can allocate solid fuel, but some action of this kind was taken during the war, and I think the House should know what the Coalition Government did in this matter. In April, 1944, the Minister of Production, acting as the agent for the Minister of Fuel and Power, issued a direction under the Control of Fuel Order (No. 3), 1942, instructing Indus trial consumers:


to reduce consumption of electricity and gas by 10 per cent. and 25 per cent., respectively, of what would have been the consumption but for this direction during the period beginning 3rd April.
I see the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is shaking his head, and probably he is thinking the same as I am, namely, that an Order of that kind which simply says that you must restrict consumption below what you otherwise would have consumed is really not worth the paper on which it is written.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shook my head only because it seemed to me, from the hon. Gentleman's very clear exposition of that Order, that it was on a wholly different basis from this Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: It was entirely different. My point is that the basis of saying that you must not consume as muck as, or more than, you would otherwise have consumed is a completely useless basis, and indeed, I think that an hon. Member opposite made that point in a supplementary question today. There was one other Order made, however, in March or April, 1945, which applied to Scotland, and which did lay down that consumption was not to exceed a certain percentage of what had been consumed in a basic period—in other words, it was on precisely the same basis as we have adopted in this Order.
But having said that the notion of restricting consumption to what you would have consumed if the Order had not come into operation is useless, I must also point out that it is not really practicable to go to the opposite extreme. It would no doubt be very nice to be able to fix for each industrial consumer just the right amount of electricity which it would be fair to allow him to consume, but how can we possibly do that? There are at least 30,000 of these firms involved. In the case of solid fuel we have a fairly shrewd idea of their requirements, and we take into account the fuel efficiency aspect of the problem, and if we think that a firm is not making fully efficient use of what it is getting, we cut the allocation accordingly, or make it take inferior fuel and show it how to use that fuel. Frankly, we have not got that information in the case of electricity and gas.
Our aim in making this Order was to do something to restrict the consumption of electricity and gas and

to hold it down, roughly speaking, to the November period. We took the precaution, however, of making it clear that we would issue licences to those firms who could not manage to keep down to the November consumption. That is my first answer to the criticism that this Order penalises those who have already done all that they can to economise. If that is the case they are perfectly entitled to apply for a licence and I am sure they will get it.

Sir J. Mellor: How long will it take for them to get a licence?

Mr. Gaitskell: We have already issued about 90 licences in the North-Western Region.

Sir J. Mellor: Out of how many applications?

Mr. Gaitskell: So far as I know, all applications have been granted so far, but we are in the early days of this scheme, for it has only been in operation three weeks. I do not see why there should be any unusual delay in that matter. The Order has been criticised on the grounds that it is unfair and, as I have said, that it penalises those who are already doing everything they can to economise. What is the alternative? No serious alternative has been put forward by the Opposition speakers. If they have a serious suggestion to make as to the basis on which electricity should be restricted we should like to hear it. It is not forthcoming. At that I am not surprised, because I doubt if there is any other satisfactory basis. I grant that this' is a rough and ready method and that is why it has been laid down that firms should be able to apply for licences.

Sir J. Mellor: My argument was that anything would be better than this, because this encourages extravagance in the future. It is being made quite clear that economy is being penalised and so the Government will get no further response to the Minister's appeals to cut down consumption.

Mr. Gaitskell: Broadly speaking, there has to be a choice between three possibilities. We could adopt the plan adopted by the Minister of Production in the Coalition Government and tell consumers that they shall not consume in the coming period more than they would normally consume. I have tried to explain why that is ineffective. Then the Government


could detail how much 30,000 or 40,000 consumers would need, which is impossible. Thirdly, we could adopt the rough and ready method of a basic period and provide, by licence, for taking care of any difficult cases that might arise. We have chosen the third alternative and we believe that that is right.
I should like now to refer to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames. Suppose we agree that the basic period is the best for dealing with the problem, how is this to be arranged? We cannot arrange for all the meters of every industrial consumer to be read on the same day. So we decided to take the methods used by the Coalition Government in the case of Scotland—the period preceding the last meter reading. Most industrial firms have their meters read once a month and the number of cases of those who go back into October will be small and still further into September smaller still. I conceive that there might be a few such cases. Again, if there were to be such cases the licensing provisions are precisely designed to take care of that situation. As to the date upon which the Order was made, if we had chosen an earlier date than 21st December obviously the difficulty of the fact that the basic period would have gone still further back would have been accentuated.
As to the small time which elapsed between the printing of the Order and the actual date on which the basic period was made, I do not think that it is seriously contended that many firms were likely to get hold of the details of the Order before it was actually issued and, turning all the switches, use all the electricity that they could burn. We are not seriously worried about that at all. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) mentioned the explanatory note. He did not press the point and I do not think that the Order would be any more clear if instead of 2½ per cent. we had used 97½ per cent., so turning the thing round.
I want to emphasise that, of course, we want to do everything possible to give encouragement to those who are economical and efficient in the use of fuel. I agree that this is not a perfect way of restricting electricity. I repeat, if anybody has any suggestions to make of a more perfect way which is administratively practicable and does not take up too much

labour and time, I shall be delighted to hear it. What I do claim for this Order—and I would again remind the House that this was pressed upon us by the leaders of industry themselves—is that it will do something to restrict the abnormal and unjustifiable use of electricity and give some reassurance to the miners that coal in the shape of electricity and gas is not being unnecessarily wasted. I, therefore, ask the House not to annul this Order.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Lennox Boyd: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power has said anything which would justify my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) withdrawing the, Motion. It seems to me the hon. Gentleman has said nothing which meets the many very important points that were raised, but in the concluding sentences of his speech he referred to the encouragement that this Rule and Order was supposed to give to the miners. We had long been assured that when the flag of the National Coal Board was hoisted over the collieries of Great Britain and the mines became public property no further action would be needed in order to secure maximum results from that quarter.
The hon. Gentleman also said in the course of his interesting speech that the Government and his Department had now definitely abandoned in this sphere the matter of voluntary appeal to British citizens and industry to come in and help in this undoubted hour of national crisis. We have always been told that this is a people's Government—the consummation of the hopes and ambitions of millions of people over many years. This is a most interesting commentary on the justification of that point of view that a Government so created and presumably still so sustained feel that a voluntary appeal is quite impossible. There was a time when the people of this country responded to voluntary appeals.

Mr. Janner: What the hon. Gentleman's friends were alleging was that advantage was being taken by some people of what was a totally unfair condition of things. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was not alleged. What was alleged was that it was slovenly legislation that allowed such a possibility to arise.

Mr. Gaitskell: We were strongly urged by the National' Production Advisory Council on Industry—the leaders of industry themselves—to make a compulsory Order so that those who were not in line with the genera] practice should be brought into line.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have got two answers to that. The leaders of industry also suggested that the nationalisation proposals should be abandoned, but their advice was not followed. If their advice is followed now, why should it, in another aspect, be totally disregarded? Secondly, did (he leaders of industry really suggest that this proposal, impinging as it does on the liberty and freedom of production of those people who have followed the voluntary appeal, should be promulgated? I very much doubt so.

Mr. Gaitskell: They did not. Some of them suggested as the only alternative—which we rejected—that we should adopt the other method of simply asking industry not to consume more than they would otherwise consume.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It does not really lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to say that the leaders of industry favour this Order.

Mr. Gaitskell: What I said was that they were in favour of making a compulsory Order.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By the hon. Gentleman's own statement, the leaders of industry were in favour of a further appeal to the people not to consume any more than they had hitherto consumed. There was a time in this and in every other field when appeals to the British people were successful. That was the time when voluntary effort was appreciated, when volunteers were honoured and when prudent people who put by and saved were rewarded. We live in very different days today. Many of us remember in 1931 the readiness of the British people to put up with many restrictions, increased taxation and many more hardships. In those days there were queues—queues of people at the Income Tax offices because they were ready to pay their Income Tax. That was a time when the Government recog-

nised and acknowledged that the country was in danger, and that was a Government that commanded national respect.
Nothing has been said by the hon. Gentleman seriously to deal with the three or four points that have been made. We do not in the least know how far this Order is already, in the mind of his Department, absorbed and swamped by further cuts and further intentions. If this comes to be promulgated in the next few days there may well be another Order on the way. This particular Order will immediately be rescinded and these particular offences will cease to be legal offences. We have had no answer to the contention that has been made that the prudent people who saved during the basic period are being penalised, save the statement of the hon. Gentleman that those who applied for licences in one particular region have all had them granted—which undoubtedly tomorrow will lead to a flood of applications all over the country. We would be interested to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman in regard to that particular point, that if any consumers can show that during the period of voluntary appeals they really did cut down their consumption, their applications for licences will be granted immediately. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to this House that such licences will be granted automatically? If so, I will give way willingly. I see that he is very anxious to do so, but apparently the Home Secretary, with wider experience, thinks it unwise.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot possibly give an undertaking on this case because the needs of the particular consumer may have altered meanwhile. What I have said and repeat is that, of course, if the consumer can show that he has cut down to the fullest possible extent, that will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is a phrase that has a very familiar ring and, I am afraid, not a very endearing one to most industrialists. Next, we have had no answer whatever to the contention made twice or thrice from these Benches as to the position of those people—negligible in number, we hope—who, knowing that the cut was coming and was to be based on the consumption during a period not then exhausted, were given an incentive to use more during the remaining stages of that


period and thereby acquire a higher basic rate on which future cuts would be imposed. We have had no answer whatever to that contention and if the Order does not allow for that possibility then, as one of my hon. Friends has said, it is a very shoddy Order. Lastly, we have had no answer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) called the phrase in this Order which shows a complete ignorance of the facts of life and of the English climate. I would not go as far as to say that the Government are lacking in knowledge even in that rather personal sphere, but there has been no answer to the contention

tion that the needs of industry vary during the different periods of the year, whereas the Order appears to regard all seasons during the English year as being similar in every respect. This is a Private Member's Prayer and while I cannot suggest to my hon. Friend the course he should take, I think he would be very ill advised to withdraw it.

Question put,
That the Electricity and Gas (Reduction of Consumption) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 2087), dated 10th December, 1946, a copy of which was presented.on 12th December, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 263.

Division No. 58.]
AYES.
[8.14 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Scott, Lord W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Snadden, W M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Birch, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Langford-Holt, J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Bower, N.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Studholme, H. G.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Butcher, H W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Carson, E.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Marchall, D (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maude, J. C.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Digby, S. W.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Osborne, C
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.



Gammans, L. D.
Raikes, H. V
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Sir John Mellor and


Grant, Lady
Rayner, Brig. R.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.


Grimston, R. V.
Ronton, D.





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Crossman, R. H. S


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Daggar, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bramall, Major E. A.
Daines, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Brook, D (Halifax)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Ernest' (Enfield)


Attewell, H. C.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Austin, H. Lewis
Buchanan, G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Burden, T W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Ayles, W. H.
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Bacon, Miss A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A
Diamond, J.


Baird, J.
Champion, A. J.
Dobbie, W.


Barstow, P G.
Chater, D
Donovan, T.


Barton, C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Battley, J. R.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cobb, F. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benson, G.
Cocks, F. S.
Edelman, M.


Beswick, F.
Collick, P.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collindridge, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Binns, J.
Collins, V. J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)


Blackburn, A. R.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Blenkinsop, A.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Ewart, R.


Blyton, W. R
Cook, T. F.
Fairhurst, F.


Boardman, H.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Farthing, W. J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Field, Capt W. J.


Bowden. Flg -Offr. H. W.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington, E.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Corvedale, Viscount
Follick, M.




Foot, M. M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Sargood, R.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Scollan, T.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Shackleton, Wing.-Cdr. E. A. A.


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sharp, Granville


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu. J. P. W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, H. A.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Simmons, C. J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Grierson, E.
Medland, H. M.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Messer, F
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)
Mikardo, Ian
Solley, L. J.


Gunter, R. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sorensen, R. W


Guy, W H.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Stamford, W.


Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Monslow, W.
Steele, T.


Hall, W. G.
Moody, A S.
Stephen, C.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Morgan, Dr, H. B.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hardy, E A.
Morley, R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Harrison, J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Swingler, S.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Herbison, Miss M.
Nally, W.
Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hicks, G.
Neal, H. (Claycress)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Hobson, C. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Holman, P.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


House, G.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Hoy, J.
O'Brien, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hubbard, T.
Oldfield, W. H.
Thurtle, E.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Tiffany, S.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Orbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paget, R. T.
Titterington, M. F.


Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Tolley, L.


Jay, D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parker, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parkin, B T.
Usborne, Henry


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Viant, S. P


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pearson, A.
Wadsworth, G.


Keenan, W
Peart, Capt T. F.
Walkden, E.


Kenyon, C
Piratin, P
Walker, G. H.


King, E. M.
Pooh, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Popplewell, E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Kinley, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Warbey, W N.


Kirby, B. V.
Proctor, W. T.
Watson, W. M.


Lavers, S.
Pryde, D. J.
Weitzman, D.


Lawson. Fit. Hon. J. J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
West, D. G


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Randall, H. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Levy, B W
Ranger, J.
Wilkes, L.


Lewis, A, W. J. (Upton)
Rankin, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Longden, F.
Robens, A
Willis, E.


Lyne, A. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woodburn, A


McAdam, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wyatt, W.


McEntee, V. La T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwiok)
Yates, V. F.


McGhee, H. G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Mack, J. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)



McKay, J (Wallsend)
Royle, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.




Mr. Coldrick and Mr. Hannan


Question put, and agreed to.

TELEVISION SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

8.25 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: During the Debate on nth December on the subject of broadcasting, there was a reference to the television service. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General prefaced his remarks by paying a tribute to the engineers of the B.B.C. He referred to the statement made by the President of

the Radio Corporation of America, who had said:
They are as good as any in the world.
My hon. Friend went on to say with regard to television that the experiments which had closed down when the war began had been taken up immediately hostilities had ceased. He added:
Today there is in London, and nowhere else in the world, a regular, daily television service, available to the public seven days in the week.
My hon. Friend then made what I thought was a most important reference to this


question of a television service, when he said:
The Government, therefore, desire not to do anything which might have the effect of holding up or retarding these developments". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1184–5.]
Although that may be perfectly true, the Government, as I shall attempt to show tonight, are doing very little to encourage development of what is one of the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century. We shall have to ask ourselves what the position is today in regard to this service and what must be our estimate of it in the future. The television services have been aptly described by one of our leading newspapers as "the Cinderella of the B.B.C." We know that only a very small number of people, living within a narrow range of Alexandra Palace, have the benefit of looking-in at this service. It is recognised that development would have proceeded much more rapidly had the cessation of the service not been necessary at the beginning of the war, and I am sure that everyone interested in the subject will have the deepest sympathy with the small band of enthusiasts who devoted themselves to the development of this great scientific medium which they were forced to discontinue when the war broke out just when it seemed to be at the point of opportunity.
It is not my object to decry the efforts of the technicians who are operating the service; on the contrary. They show great skill, and they have the enthusiasm which enables them to overcome a multitude of intricate and practical problems with which they are faced day by day. When we ask ourselves what the Government are doing to assist them we find that these technicians are being called upon to employ equipment which I think was manufactured in 1936 and which is now out-of-date or is badly in need of repair. The accommodation at Alexandra Palace may have been suitable for the experimental stage of the service in the old days, but today it is very inadequate. Taking into account the out-of-date equipment and the inadequate accommodation I think very great credit is due to those people who are maintaining the service at the present time.
These technicians are entitled to our wholehearted support. We find that they are facing very severe handicaps today but very much greater opposition than

existed before the war. They are trying to keep alive this 20th century child, which is struggling for its life against the opposition of the large vested interests who are running the entertainment of this country. We know, so far as the sporting world is concerned, it is impossible for one of the big sporting promoters to be induced to agree, for example, to a big fight being televised. In the same way, theatrical managers will not allow their artists to appear on the television screen.
In the variety world the same position obtains. Before the war, we could at least see films on the television screen which we cannot do today. That is because the film interests are terrified at what they regard as an entirely new type of monster which threatens to consume them. They have decided that it would be against their interests to permit films to be shown on the television screen. Walt Disney films and Micky Mouse cartoons have been very popular and were exhibited on the television screen after the service was restarted on 7th June.
They came to an end, however, on 31st December because Mr. Disney in America has been prohibited from showing his cartoons on the television screen there and the same prohibition now prevails in respect of this country. Day by day the entertainment facilities of this very important service are becoming more and more acute so as to make the programme virtually unattractive to those who might be inclined to buy a television receiver. As to the films which are shown now, we know they must have no commercial value because otherwise they would not be allowed to be exhibited. They have to be so old or so bad so that they are commercially worthless before they can possibly be put on at Alexandra Palace. The news reels which were available before the war—I think Pathé Gazette and Gaumont-British—are also prohibited from being shown. Those who buy a television receiver today will see that only 10 per cent. of the full length plays which are produced at Alexandra Palace should ever be televised, as the facilities available make it impossible to reach a high standard of production.
Technicians are working under the greatest difficulties attempting to give the public the best possible entertainment of which they are capable and they are prevented from doing so by the fact that the


script writer who works for television service gets only one-third of what he does when he writes for the B.B.C When one takes into account the fact that the task is much more intricate and that much more rehearsal is necessary to prepare for the cameras, one must agree that something is seriously wrong with. the administration of this department. It is the responsibility of the B.B.C, and of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General. It seems to me that the trouble is money. It is said that money is the root of all evil. I think that money is the root of this evil, and that the Government and the B.B.C, have failed to give the necessary finance to this great scientific development. The trouble with the organisation is that although it has the technicians who are capable of doing a good job, they have not the facilities available to give of their best because the very best form of entertainment, equipment and accommodation is not made accessible to them owing to the niggardly attitude of the B.B.C.
We know that the service is financed out of the licence fees, and we also know that one cannot run any industry satisfactorily by having amounts paid into the bank day by day. There must be reserves. The television service has insufficient money to carry on its job satisfactorily. So far as the future is concerned, it is based upon previous expenditure. That is quite reasonable having regard to the fact that there has been a war and that the first period of postwar costing has just passed by on which to base their estimates, but unless the Government are prepared to put millions into television we have little hope that it will develop on a nation-wide scale which will enable people in other parts of the country to see what people in London can enjoy up to a point at the present time The payments to technicians present an even more serious aspect A camera man working from early morning until late at night gets from £6 a week to £430 per annum. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General why it should be necessary for these people at Alexandra Palace to be paid less than the technicians at the B.B.C. Is it because the B.B.C, regards Alexandra Palace as a branch office? Is it because there is a lack of imagination on the part of the Corporation, or is it because there is something wrong with the administration of the B.B.C? There is no doubt

that men who use a measuring tape from the camera to the artist are in some cases paid more than the head cameraman responsible for the production. These men are working under these conditions because they believe in television and they have been prepared to accept even a lower salary knowing full well that they are working on a project which will mean something to the nation in the future.
I have dealt with some of the difficulties which they have to face, and I maintain that the Government must realise that this is an entirely new dynamic medium They must get out of their minds that they can approach it in precisely the same way as they have approached broadcasting in the past. There are so many opportunities in television In this country our problems are far smaller than they are in the United States of America because we have a much smaller area to cover, and we often pride ourselves that, however badly we are off here, the Americans are in an even worse position. But this is not the case. If my hon. Friend will read the recent reports, he will find that in the United States of America they have already televised a football match at Philadelphia which was seen in Washington, and that the coaxial cable linking New York to Hollywood, a distance of 3,000 miles, has already been installed to the extent of 2,000 miles. Therefore we must realise that we are not in a better position than the United States, and that over there they have a more keen appreciation of the necessity of developing this vital service.
What a wonderful opportunity we would have in this country if we were first in developing a nation-wide television. We could have a vivid, intelligent education of the masses, It would enable us to increase the awareness on public affairs of our democratic community, and to have a varied diet of entertainment which at present is not possible. This country has a great tradition of family life to uphold and the television receiver is capable of making people change their ideas about going out at night and induces them to gather, round the fireplace, but half the people at the present time who are inclined to sit round at night now lose interest and, in many cases, switch off the receiver.
When I was young, I used to like going to the Zoo. I had a great admiration for


the people who were in charge of it because I thought they did a very courageous job. I think that the head keeper of the Zoo televises very well, and most of us have at some time been fascinated by snakes, but one does not want to see snakes three times a week, and the reason why we have these so-called facilities at the Zoo placed at our disposal so often is because it is cheap and the Government are saving money—

Mr. Cobb: And the snakes do not mind.

Mr. Lewis: And the snakes do not mind, as my hon. Friend says. But this is really not good enough for a national service, and I see no reason why people who live in Liverpool should not look at the Derby being run at Epsom, and those living at Epsom should not see the Grand National on their television screens, However, it requires money and I hope my hon. Friend will enable the television service to have sufficient funds in order to develop at a reasonable rate.
I think my hon. Friend is very conversant with the difficulty of getting the best possible entertainment on the television screen. He knows full well that the large promoters of sporting events, theatrical managers, and the owners of variety circuits are not prepared to accept what they deem to be a ridiculously small fee when they compare it with the number of people who, in the normal way, would pass through the turnstiles. It is only possible to get over this difficulty by making the system nation-wide so that they will not be catering for only those people who live in the vicinity of Alexandra Palace, but for a much wider audience throughout the country. If Mr. Rank, who is often mentioned in this House and other' places, is prepared in his circumstances to show television on his cinema screens, I do not see any reason why he should not be allowed to do so, because it would have the effect of popularising what is a new medium.
If he is prepared to go to the extent of technical investigation, development, and research for developing production facilities for television programmes designed for his cinemas different from those designed for the home, he should be given

encouragement. But why should a national service of this kind have to look to outside interests to provide money for research and development when it should be the prerogative of the Government? At the present rate of development, it will be 1968 before we have television in my hon. Friend's constituency and in my own. If a plebiscite were taken, asking whether or not the people wished to wait until 1968 for television from the B.B.C, or until 1948 from Mr. Rank, they would say, "Let Mr. Rank get on with the job." This is not good enough. It is for the Government to ensure that this system is made available to as many people as possible throughout the country by providing, sufficient funds for the purpose.
I will make one or two suggestions as to what steps I think should be taken now to expedite the development of television services The first point to which consideration should be given is the provision of adequate finance, by means of a State grant. The Television Service must not be regarded as a country cousin, or a branch office of the B.B.C. We must regard it as an independent organisation, entitled to the finance it requires, not only for its day to day work, but also for research and development. My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the developments in technicolour some years ago were the result of expenditure known at that time as the "Whitney millions." We cannot get scientific development unless we are prepared to pay for it. We should endeavour to secure a much closer cooperation with the film industry. There is absolutely no reason why films should not be shown on the television screen from morning until night. The only reason why they are not shown now is because it is prohibited by those who control their exhibition and look on television as a competitor. I think there should be a much larger allocation to television from the B.B.C, revenue. The Government would have done much better if, instead of developing the Third Programme, they had given that money to the Television Service.
There is another point in connection with cable charges which I should like to raise. I understand that the Post Office supplement their income very heavily by charges for service to the B.B.C, There is no reason why they should do that. Why should the television service have to


pay full commercial rates for the use of G.P.O. lines? They could give this service reduced rates, and so increase the amounts available for purchase of new equipment which would be well spent. If we are going to create a great national industry, it is essential to look at it, not so much as a domestic industry, but as one of our most important potential exports. If South Africa wants to buy television receivers or transmitters there will be an alternative market, and she would be able to buy from the United States of America, or from this country. Any industrialist can tell my hon. Friend that in regard to the export market the amount of goods sold in this market have a direct relationship with the amount expended in research in his own laboratories. Unless we are prepared to encourage a wide imaginative approach to this question, to regard it as a valuable export commodity in the future, and to avoid being niggardly with the sums of money to be spent, we shall be very far behind when we come to compete in the world's markets.
I am an ordinary "viewer"—I think that is the correct expression to use—an "observer" or a "looker-in." call it what you will. I had a television set prior to the war, and I have one today. There are tremendous potentialities and wonderful opportunities for developing this great national service, but at the present time, due to the difficulties with which the technicians are faced, due to the opposition of the sporting and entertainment world, it is not worth while purchasing a television receiver because the programmes do not warrant the expenses except on rare occasions. Will my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General indicate what are the Government's intentions in the future in regard to this service? I fee] that the radio industry, which after all is primarily interested, will be grateful to him if he will give them some idea of what cooperation the Government will give them in the future.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) has raised an impressive subject. Having had some connection with the industry for a number of years, I would like to discuss one or two other angles to it, because I do not think the problem is quite' so easy of solution as has been suggested. I

would like to touch first upon the export point. I believe that one of the greatest reasons for putting British television where it was before the war, that is, ahead of all the rest of the world, is because of the export situation. Broadly speaking, it can be said that television divides into two main techniques—the British technique and the American technique. It is true to say that if a country like South Africa or South America started using the American system of transmission, British receivers made to receive the British system of television would be useless in that country. It is, therefore, very important from an export point of view that we put British television ahead of that of every other country, so that other countries who want to instal a system of television transmission will use the British system and not the American one, because once they have put in the American system of transmission British sets will have to be specially designed for that market.
Those who have had experience of mass production know that one of the things that raises production costs is to have to make one type of product using one type of technique for the home market and another using a different technique for the export market. Is it not right to assume that countries will buy their television transmitters in the country which has the greatest reputation for television? From that point of view I think that when my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General replies, he might perhaps bear in mind that he would be justified in urging the B.B.C, to take greater risks than might otherwise appear to be justified.
When I come to the question of what ought to be done about the spread of television in this country, I think that my hon. Friend and the B.B.C, are quite right 'in being a little hesitant. Let us look at the situation. In America there has been developed, by the Radio Corporation of America and other companies, a system of colour television. At the moment I imagine that my hon. Friend and the B.B.C. are faced with this problem—Should they go ahead and open up television transmitters all over the country at a considerable cost and then find, in three or four years' time, that they are obsolete? I am not sufficiently up to date on this particular problem to know whether a


television transmitter of the type installed at Alexandra Palace can be easily and cheaply altered for colour television, when it comes.
I do not know, and I believe it would be very difficult for anybody to say at the moment, whether colour television is just around the corner or whether it will be introduced in two or five years. Certainly, some of my American friends seem to think that it will be here in two or three years.
The B.B.C, and the Minister, have to consider that they are spending public money. I believe that with this problem in front of them even the most virile private enterprise would hesitate to some degree. The Americans certainly are hesitating upon this point at the moment. I am sorry to differ slightly from the hon. Member for Bolton. As I see it, this is the crux of the matter. Are we justified in opening television transmitters in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, and perhaps Aberdeen, if we may find in four years' time that we have to scrap the lot?

Mr. Lewis: If my hon. Friend's argument could be sustained, that would mean that we would always be awaiting a further technical development in any sphere of industrial progress, so much so that we would never get anywhere. I hope my hon. Friend sees my point.

Mr. Cobb: I see the point, but I do not know whether it is right because, after all, there is technical development in hand at the moment, as a result of which it appears very likely that colour television can be installed in the near future. I would ask my hon. Friend whether he would buy a television receiver today at a cost of say, about £80 or £100, if he thought that in two years' time it would be obsolete and he would have to scrap it? I think the B.B.C, the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Postmaster-General, are in a situation in which they are bound to hesitate when considering the amount of capital which they would be called upon to invest. Have they hesitated very much? I understand that the coaxial cable, which is necessary, already exists through Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester up to Newcastle.
Then we have two technical schools of thought on this subject. We have the cable interests, on the one hand, and they say that the best system for the transmission of television is by means of the coaxial cable which, before the war, I understand, cost £1,000 a mile. The radio people, aided by the Radio Corporation of America, on the other hand, say that radio link is the thing. It will be a bold technician who would say at the moment which of the two is definitely right. I still think that the battle remains to be fought out to a decision. The Americans certainly take that view. I hope when my hon. Friend replies he will be able to give us some up to date information upon this.
When we consider the situation in America, it will be seen that we are carrying on a battle with the Americans. I say that in the most friendly way. The Americans complain that their industry is not as far advanced as is ours. I think they are faced with an almost insuperable problem caused because they have a different system of broadcasting. They depend upon expenditure by advertisers. Advertisers there are saying to the broadcasters of television, "Where is the audience? When you can show us an audience, we will do some advertising." The people who have the transmitters say, "We cannot afford to put on programmes until you give us some money." That is the battle going on in America. Luckily, we have a situation in this country where we have national funds at our disposal for this service. We are in a much better position. It should be remembered that expenditure of public money is involved and I do not think that we can blame the Post Office and the B.B.C, if they think twice before they decide what to do about this.
There are some other considerations. When we come to the question of television programmes, I do not know, again, whether it is quite so simple a matter as my hon. Friend made out, because, after all, if we spend £1,000 on preparing a play and televising it, supposing that we have 10 or 11 million people with receivers, it is finished. Nobody wants to see it again. It is true that we could film it first, but that is an expensive matter. What is the position in this country today? I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the television industry will have more encouragement, because I understand that the situation is


that they are held up at the moment for certain materials. It may be that my hon. Friend will have to tell us that television is, perhaps, a luxury, and that he cannot allocate materials to the television industry because they are required elsewhere. I understand that one of the main bottlenecks at the moment, in the London area, at any rate, is glass for television tubes. My hon. Friend may tell us that there is a shortage of glass for television tubes. I also understand that there is a shortage of glass for lamp manufacture, and that a similar type of glass to that required for television tubes is needed for lamp manufacture.
I think that my hon. Friend is entitled to weigh up, if there is a shortage of glass in this country, whether that glass should be allocated to the manufacurers of television tubes, on the one hand, or whether it should go to the lamp makers, on the other—whether it is more important to the people of the country that they should have lamps or television tubes, if there is not sufficient manufacturing capacity to give them both. Those are the problems facing us today, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give us better news about the provision of tubes, and other similar materials, for television.
There is a further point, and this concerns B.B.C, technicians. I have a great admiration for the B.B.C, and I was a junior engineer for the B.B.C, many years ago. I have a great affection for that organisation, but I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some news about these technicians. I would like to think that B.B.C, technicians were going to get better rates of pay than they are getting at the moment. I believe that there is a danger that some of our really good technicians, especially on the development side of the B.B.C, may leave the organisation, and it would be a great pity, and would do considerable harm to our broadcasting activities in this country, especially to the progress of television, if these people were to leave the broadcasting service and go into private industry. I believe that we need these people. It has cost us a lot of money to obtain the experience which they have, and the country is entitled to cash in on their experience, which is unique and which is not easily obtainable elsewhere. If these people should leave us, we shall find that we cannot easily get other technicians to replace them, because they do not grow

on trees, but are precious, and we ought to see that we keep them. I hope my hon. Friend will look into these questions, and will see that we retain these very precious technicians of the B.B.C.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I apologise for my absence at the beginning of this Debate, because it may be that I shall cover points already dealt with by other speakers, but, as one of the few hon. Members of this House who have been to Alexandra Palace, and one of the very few who has taken part in a performance there—a performance which, I understand, had no disastrous effects on the receiving sets—I have one or two observations to make. I want, first, to testify to the real sense of frustration which is prevailing, not only among the technicians at Alexandra Palace, but also among those responsible for the programmes.
As I understand it, there appear to be three main immediate difficulties which have to be faced. There are the problem of accommodation, the problem of conditions of service, and the problem of out-of-date equipment. With regard to accommodation, it is very difficult to know what Alexandra Palace was ever adequate for. It is certainly not adequate for television. At the moment, for instance, any increase of staff is quite out of the question, due to the gross inadequacy of the accommodation available. So far as the conditions of service are concerned, I apprehend that my colleagues have already dealt with some aspects of this matter, but I should like to underline the fact that the complaints of the staff do seem to be justified.
For instance, camera men, who are highly skilled, receive a salary of between £7 and £10 a week, whereas they can easily treble, or even more than treble, their salaries in the film industry. Those men are quite content to work for such salaries in a developing enterprise, but, in the frustrated condition of their employment at the present time, their hearts are going out of the business. They, like everybody in Alexandra Palace, are tired of being the Cinderellas of the B.B.C. With regard to out-of-date equipment, I understand, for instance, that the cameras being used there are 11 years old. It is really a remarkable achievement that the people functioning at


Alexandra Palace have made such a magnificent job of work of it in spite of the inadequacy of the facilities available to them. It seems to me that definite decisions of policy must be made in regard to television, in the very near future. As I understand it, one of the questions to be decided is whether television should continue at Alexandra Palace, or whether it should be developed in another place. As I have indicated, it seems to me that Alexandra Palace has very few merits in its favour as a location for the television service, and such merits as there are, are discounted by the fact that the transport provided for this service is practically nonexistent. Ill-paid performers have to make the long trek to Alexandra Palace by tube and bus, there to find conditions of austerity which would satisfy even the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). What is important is that decisions as to policy should be made now so that, if television is to continue at Alexandra Palace, the redesigning of the existing buildings can be properly carried out.
It seems to me that if there is not to be any fundamental television expansion, consideration might well be given to cutting out the afternoon programme. The inadequate staff working there is really overtaxed in its energies at the present time, and I suggest that consideration should be given to the prospect of abandoning the afternoon programme, although I readily say that I only suggest that as a last resort. We are still maintaining a world lead in this great service, although experts who have recently been to America, and even to France, say that other countries are rapidly catching up with us in technical equipment and methods.
This is a sphere in which this Government in particular can show that public enterprise can achieve very great things. As has already been indicated, there are wonderful developments lying ahead in this field. There is coloured television and there are the prospects of bigger screen developments. With regard to the future of the bigger screen, it is not without interest that the ubiquitous Mr. Rank appears to have acquired the patents relating to bigger screens, and this is another sphere where I think the Postmaster-General might give an indication of future intentions.
Finally, I would like to make two concrete suggestions with regard to television. The first is that the Television Developments Committee should maintain a much closer personal contact with the conditions which prevail at Alexandra Palace. The second is that a real effort should be made to bring the Members of this House more closely into contact with television. Perhaps the Postmaster-General might be able to arrange for more visits by Members of this House to Alexandra Palace, the people who are working there have a sense of being forgotten and abandoned. I think, also, that it would be most desirable if within the precincts a television set could be installed. There are many Members of this House who have probably never seen or heard a television broadcast. I think the time has come when the television service should cease to be treated like a poor relative of the Third Programme, and when we should develop the great possibilities for instruction and entertainment which lie in this new medium which the technique and scientific skill of the people of this country have enabled us to bring to a very high pitch of efficiency.

9.7 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): We are obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J Lewis) for raising this point tonight. I am bound to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb) has very largely replied to a good deal that he said, and, indeed, has anticipated one or two of the remarks that I intended to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Elwyn Jones) spoke in a similar strain to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton. To sum up their remarks in a sentence 01 two. I think it would be fair to say that their criticism is that the Government 3rd the B.B.C, regard television as a kind of sideline, that it s something of a Cinderella that what is necessary is more money to be spent on it and they would like to see a nation-wide service. With regard to the last pan of their criticism—the desire for a nation-wide service—I can assure them that I agree with them entirely, and, indeed, so do the Corporation and the Government I do not agree that the television service is regarded as a Cinderella neither do I agree that the Government have been niggardly in their allocation of finance I would like to deal with those points
First, let me deal with the question of accommodation and the staff at Alexandra Palace. I would like to join with my hon. Friends the Members for Elland and Bolton in paying a tribute to the engineers and others of the staff at Alexandra Palace. It is true that they are working in unsatisfactory conditions and that the accommodation there is not good, but that is one of the difficulties which the Corporation itself is up against. It is not through any malice on the part of the Corporation. It is just one of those difficulties of getting another building at the present time, which, unfortunately, is common to a great many other institutions. I share the satisfaction of the hon. Members who have spoken about the enthusiasm and the keenness of the staff there. With regard to their remuneration, there seems to be some discrepancy between the figure used by the hon. Member for Bolton and that used by the hon. Member for Plaistow; the hon. Member for Bolton said £4 and the hon. Member for Plaistow said £7.

Mr. J. Lewis: No: £b a week rising to £430 per annum.

Mr. Burke: In any case, I think it is true that the cameramen are not being treated well enough; and so do the Corporation, because negotiations are going on at the present time. I can say, I think with confidence, that the cameramen will receive very substantial increases in their pay Negotiations have been going on with the electricians for some considerable time, and increases of pay, in the neighbourhood of £50 per year on an average, have been agreed to, and, I think, are being paid to the electricians at the present time It is essential that the' Corporation should see that the services of highly skilled men and women should be adequately rewarded.

Mr. Cobb: What about the more senior, and perhaps rather less articulate, members of the staff, who are very precious?

Mr. Burke: I understand that the position with regard to Alexandra Palace and Broadcasting House is that there are common rates in both cases, but if there is any advantage at all it lies with Alexandra Palace, because there are more of the senior appointments there in proportion to numbers than there are at Broadcasting House.

Mr. Cobb: I was referring to the senior people in the B.B.C, as a whole, on the technical side

Mr. Burke: I cannot say with regard to that, but I am certain that the Corporation are mindful of the need to remunerate adequately that class of people.? With regard to Alexandra Palace, presumably that building was taken because of its position in regard to London as a whole, and because of its suitable elevation. It is not adequate enough, and the Corporation would like to improve upon it. The difficulty is, they cannot; attempts have been made to expand the accommodation, but that is not possible without building. Therefore, the position remains very unsatisfactory, and is one of the things which cannot be altered at the moment because of the building situation at the present time. I do not think I need say more about the payment and treatment of the staff.
With regard to the fees paid to script writers, the hon. Member for Bolton suggested that much lower fees are paid at Alexandra Palace than are paid at Broadcasting House. The position the Government have taken up with regard to the rates of pay for scripts and so on is, that the Corporation must be allowed to keep a very general and large measure of independence. I think that is sound. But I am informed that the artists who provide their own scripts at Alexandra Palace are paid at least equally with those at Broadcasting House, and it is only in the case of those who use published scripts that there is a reduction in the; amount paid I think this can be justified because the audience that receives the television services is, of course, very much smaller than the audience which receives the sound broadcasts. After all is said and done, one cannot completely ignore the fact that there is a very great difference in the sizes of the two audiences.
It seems to me, on the question of finance, that that fact—the difference in the size of the audiences—has been made up to a very large extent in the Government's handling of the finances. It has been said or suggested that the Government have not been generous. What are the facts? Previously, the B.B.C, received 75 per cent. of the net licences. By the last agreement the B.B.C, is to receive 85 per cent. of the net licence


revenue, and 85 per cent. of a licence that was doubled because it was recognised that the Corporation had not sufficient finances. As far as the Post Office is concerned, it, also, came along and made its humble contribution to help the finances of the B.B.C. Whereas previously the Post Office used to charge nine per cent., it is now only going to charge six per cent. for the service of collection. As a matter of fact, it is always open to the Corporation, if the 85 per cent. allocation is not sufficient, to make representations, and the Government, I am sure, would look sympathetically at those representations.

Mr. J. Lewis: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman went on to the question of finance, because I was anxious to raise a point about script writers. I am sure he realises that script writing is a highly specialised profession. He is now saying that there is a smaller audience for television. Does he realise that we cannot get a large audience for television unless the script writers are paid to produce first class entertainment?

Mr. Burke: I will come to the question of whether we are likely to get a larger audience or not when I come to the question of the sets. I can show my hon. Friend that, whatever the script writers are being paid just now, the size of the audience is increasing, and that, despite all the difficulties, it is increasing at a very rapid rate. I was on the question of finance. The discussion on the White Paper will recall to mind that the Government have realised that, in a very short time, the expenditure on television will amount to £2,000,000; and they have justified taking £2,000,000 from the ordinary licences to finance and to develop the television services, although the portion of the population benefiting by those services at the present time is very small as compared with the other section of the community.

Mr. Osborne: Do we understand that the people living in the North and the Midlands, who cannot get the television service, are subsidising those who do?

Mr. Burke: Yes, because unless the television services receive some more finance it will be impossible to carry out the experiments and the constructional work to

enable the North to get those services. The question of the equipment has been touched upon. It is true that the equipment that is in use at Alexandra Palace is the old equipment that was there before the war. The Corporation were faced with this difficulty when it was decided that they should start up television. Nothing could be done during the war in the way of getting new equipment. All that could be done—and it was done, I understand—was to maintain the old equipment and keep it in readiness, and it was maintained at a high standard of efficiency. The problem then arose whether to try to get fresh equipment, or to use the old equipment and carry on immediately, and I think the right decision was taken to carry on with the old 405-line definition, because there were a number of sets available which people had bought and this decision gave them a chance of using those sets.
It was not, however, a case of starting where they left off. Everything was done to improve the service, and I will mention three improvements that were made in the old-fashioned equipment to which I have just referred. The transmission aerial was redesigned, there was an increase in the radio frequency band, giving finer detail in the picture, and the cause of streaking on the picture was discovered and to a very large extent eliminated. The result is that today we have a very much better picture than before the war, and foreign observers, including Americans, have said that there are no better pictures to be seen than those in the B.B.C, service. That was my own experience, too, when I saw the service in America. Six months ago Mr. L. H. Bedford, of Cossor's, returned from the United States and said: "America cannot show pictures equal in merit to those we had in 1939. Television has not made any impression in America, and I have failed to find it in the home." That is perfectly true. It is not in the homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland said that there are 13,000 sets in America. I think he is being over generous. There are, I should think, something between 7,000 and 10,000, but they are not in the homes, they have been distributed to people who are interested in television, and television is really making no headway in America as far as getting over to the people is concerned.
Results here after the war are better than they were in prewar days. They show an improvement, and I think it is wrong to condemn the efforts that have been made. It would, in my opinion, have been uneconomic and wasteful to have concentrated on a higher definition and to have gone in for new machinery. As a matter of fact, it would have been impossible to get the new machinery. That, however, does not mean that we are content with the present state of affairs, or that we are content with the present definition. It is untrue also to say that the firms have been held back and are not getting any encouragement from the Corporation or from the Department. The reason why people have to put their names down and wait some considerable time before getting a set is not due to any policy on the part of the Corporation, it is due to some of those inevitable shortages that follow in the aftermath of war. My hon. Friend the Member for Elland has mentioned the chief source of the trouble, namely, the shortage of glass for making cathode ray tubes, and that is largely due to the fact that technical investigation showed that soda-ash glass is not as good as lead glass. Lead glass is now being used, not for six-inch but for nine-inch tubes.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has been very helpful. Here are a few facts which may interest the House in showing that at the present time trade is being helped. There is to be an increased production of larger tubes, arranged so that it is expected that, instead of the ordinary production of 60,000 per year of the six-inch type, there will be 180,000 of the nine-inch type. It is also proved by looking at the number of sets. When the service started in the month of June, 375 sets were produced. In September the number had doubled, in October it was 1,334, and in November which is the last month for which I have figures, it was 1,725. The same thing is true with regard to the number of licences. These figures speak eloquently for the improvement which is taking place in the industry.
With regard to the general television service, much has been said about the desirability of a nation-wide service. We are very anxious that that service should be put into operation at the earliest possible moment. and it has been proposed that the service should be carried as early

as possible to Birmingham on its way into the heavier populated areas of the North. The Post Office has done its part, and inquiries have been made for a suitable site in Birmingham, but everyone knows how difficult it is to get a site As soon as you find a site which is good enough to build upon, you come up against difficulties—perhaps you want to mine coal from underneath, and then, when you find a site solid enough, you are told by the Minister for Civil Aviation that you cannot go too high because it would interfere with civil aviation. It is not easy to get a suitable site and it would be wasteful to take over a site where coverage is not available for sufficient people to get advantage. There is also the difficulty of carrying the cable up from London to Birmingham, and even in getting sites for amplifying stations. All these are the practical difficulties which are hampering the service, and it is not the maliciousness of the Government or the B.B.C, and it is not neglect and indifference by the Government. It is not a question of money, because if we had the money we could not buy the things because they are not there, and that is one of the difficulties we are up against at the present time.
Research is being carried on. Arrangements have been made—and this meets the point of my hon. Friend—to run a two-way link between London and Birmingham so that programmes can be sent in either direction, either by cable or radio link. That does away with the necessity of having to look too far ahead and discover which of the two methods will be found the better. We have decided, when the service is taken to Birmingham, that it will not be necessary for people to confine themselves to the 405 definition. We are hoping there will be a definition of 1,000 lines, and we are hoping also to get colour definition. We have gone into the matter and we have provided for both eventualities in a way which justifies the Corporation being entitled to a good deal of credit and praise instead of criticism.

Mr. Osborne: We are told that Birmingham will receive this service when all these difficulties have been overcome, and that it will be "as soon as possible." Can the Assistant Postmaster-General give any idea what he means by "as soon as possible"? Is it two, five or ten years? When will the North get their share?

Mr. Burke: I would not like to state a date. There is the difficulty of the shortage of materials and technical skill besides the difficulty of getting buildings and sites. I am not in a position to say when these difficulties will be overcome, but they are difficulties from which not only this country, but the world is suffering. Once we get over the difficulties to carry us half way the pace will accelerate, and it will be much easier to carry on the good work.

Mr. Cobb: A three-year programme was discussed at one time. They were going to try in three years from a certain date to cover some of the more populated centres which have been mentioned. Does the Assistant Postmaster-General consider that it will be possible to get within plus or minus 20 per cent. of that programme, or has it entirely gone by the board?

Mr. Burke: I think that the possibility of fixing a definite time has gone by the board, not that three years is too short,

but because the future is too obscure for us to see clearly the way ahead at present. There is steady improvement all round, but it is impossible to advance the claims of television over other demands on our available resources of skill and materials. The provinces have not been neglected, and provision is being made for them to be serviced as rapidly as possible. I am sorry I cannot say anything about cinema and sports promoters, because negotiations are now going on, and anything I may say may have a bad effect. It is the desire of both the Corporation and the. Government to regard television as part of an integrated broadcasting service which, in future, will not be the perquisite of the few, but will be available for the large proportion of our industrial population

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes to Ten o'Clock.